Negligent driving in a motor accident can lead to liability for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, regardless of pending murder charges in related criminal proceedings.

Judgment :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. The matters are taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. S. Satpathy, learned counsel for the insurer and Mr. D.C. Dey, learned counsel for the claimants.

3. Both the appeals being arise out of same impugned judgment, are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

4. Present appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 12^th February, 2018 of learned 4^th MACT, Cuttack passed in MAC No.144 of 2015/172 of 2016, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.23,19,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e., 18^th March, 2015 has been granted on account of death of deceased Pawan Kumar Sharma in the motor vehicular accident dated 17^th June, 2014.

5. MACA No.512 of 2018 has been filed by the insurer challenging the award and MACA No.533 of 2018 has been filed by the claimants praying for enhancement of the compensation amount.

6. The death of the deceased in the accident involving the offending vehicle, i.e. Bolero bearing registration number OR-09-H-3887 is questioned by the insurance company.

7. According to the claimants, while the deceased came out on road for morning walk on 17^th June, 2014, the offending vehicle dashed him violently causing his death. The police though initially registered a case under Section 279 /304-A of I.P.C. but submitted the charge-sheet alleging offences under Sections 302 /201 I.P.C. against the accused driver, namely Jayanta Mahanta of the offending vehicle. It is admitted at the bar that the criminal prosecution against said accused Jayanta is pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.17/187 of 2015-14.

8. An eye witness namely Hadibandhu Ranjit has been examined as P.W.2 from the side of the claimants. He has narrated in his evidence how the offending vehicle driven by the accused driver dashed the deceased from behind. This Hadibandhu Ranjit was also examined in the Sessions trial as P.W.9 where he turned hostile. So, Mr. Satpathy relying on his statement given in the sessions trial submits that the statements given by this particular witness in the claim application as P.W.2 is unworthy of credit and as such, negligence on the part of accused driver is absent to establish death of the deceased as an accident. Mr. Satpathy continues to submit that when death of the deceased is treated as murder and charge-sheet has been submitted by police against the accused as murder simplicitor, the claim for compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act is not maintainable.

9. Before delving into the submissions of the insurer, it is important to mention here that involvement of the offending vehicle in the occurrence and validity of insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle is not disputed. It is well settled that the evidences brought in a criminal case arising out the same accident is for a different purpose and cannot be relied on in the claim application filed for the purpose of compensation. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Rita Devi and Others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another , 2000(2) T.A.C. 213 (SC) have observed that the difference between a murder which is not an accident a murder which is an accident depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder.

10. In the case at hand, the fact remains that the charge of murder has not yet been proved in the criminal proceeding and trial is still pending. Looking to the evidenced of P.W.2, it is established to be a case of accident. Therefore it is difficult to accept the contention of the insurer to treat the death of deceased as murder simplicitor. To see otherwise, eve