The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'accident' and 'accidental murder' as it pertains to the entitlement of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Devi Prasad Singh and S. C. Chaurasia, JJ.—Heard Sri Prabhakar Tewari, learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

The present first appeal from order has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the impugned award dated 28.8.2003, passed by the M.A.C.T./Ist Additional District Judge, Gonda in M.A.C. No. 34 of 2001, Smt. Vidya Devi and others v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and another.

2. The brief facts, giving rise to the appeal, are that Ram Bahore Pandey, who happens to be driver of the appellants' bus was killed by robbers on 22nd June, 2000. He was driving the Bus No. U.P. 42C 1505 carrying the passengers from Delhi to Gonda in the intervening night of 22/23rd June, 2000 on G.T. Road within the Police Station-Rampur, district-Sitapur, near Khageshia Mau, the said bus was stopped by the robbers. During the course of night robbery, driver of the bus, Ram Bahore Pandey, had tried to oppose the robbers from looting the bus and in consequence thereof, he was killed by the robbers. An F.I.R. of the incident was lodged and the claimants-dependents of the deceased, Ram Bahore Pandey, filed a claim petition under Section 163A read with Section 167 of the Act and Rule 204 of the U. P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998. The dependents-claimants of the deceased have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,80,000

3. The Tribunal has framed Issue No. 1 with regard to consequential death of Ram Bahore Pandey. During course of the trial, the appellants have filed written statement and have admitted the incident that in the intervening night of 22/23rd June, 2000, Sri Ram Bahore Pandey, was the driver of appellants' bus No. U.P.-42C 1505 and when the bus arrived near Khageshia Mau, it was looted by the robbers. The bus was stopped by the robbers by blocking road by falling of trees.

4. It has been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is a case of road hold up for the purpose of robbery.

The Tribunal relying upon the admitted facts on record and the evidence led by parties arrived to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for compensation and accordingly it granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,28,000

5. The solitary argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that it was not an accidental death caused by the vehicle rather, it was caused by the robbers when Ram Bahore Pandey, was killed by the robbers. Accordingly, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that since Ram Bahore Pandey, driver of the bus, had not died in the motor accident, the appellants are not liable to pay any compensation.

6. On the other hand, the submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that in the incident in which Ram Bahore Pandey, died was an accident since the robbery was for the purpose of looting the bus and Ram Bahore Pandey, while discharging his obligations, tried to check the robbers, was killed.

7. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the purpose of robbery was to loot the bus passengers and not to kill Ram Bahore Pandey. The death of Ram Bahore Pandey was an accident and the claimants are entitled for compensation in view of the provisions contained in Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act under the structured formula.

8. Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that in case of death or permanent disablement or injury due to accident arising out of use of motor vehicle, compensation may be awarded under Second Schedule of the Act to the legal heirs or the dependents of the victim, as the case may be. Sub-section (2) of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, provides that it shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or any other person. For convenience, Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles