The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'accidental murder' in the context of the use of a motor vehicle and the maintainability of claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Manoj Misra, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 22.07.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Budaun in M.A.C.P. No. 21 of 2004 by which the claim petition, under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, of the claimant-respondents, who are dependents of late Naseem Khan (the deceased), have been partly allowed thereby awarding compensation of Rs. 1,79,500/- plus interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.

2. The claim case, in short, was that on 09.04.2003, the husband of the claimant No.1, namely, Naseem Khan was traveling in Bus No. UGL 8580 from Aonla to Budaun when, at about 7: 30 P.M., two unknown persons, with intent to rob the passengers, boarded the bus near village Parolia and, in the scuffle that ensued, shot at Naseem Khan thereby injuring him which resulted in his death, while taking him to the Hospital. It was claimed that Naseem Khan had a monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- per month from an electric shop, which he was running, and as the death was caused in an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, the claimants, who were dependents of the deceased, were entitled to compensation under the provisions of section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The owner of the bus as well as the Insurance Company (the appellant herein) contested the claim on ground that the death was not caused in an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. Instead, it was a case of murder simpliciter, therefore, the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable. It was pleaded that in respect of the incident the father of the deceased lodged a first information report, upon which, the police after investigation laid a charge-sheet under Sections 302/307 I.P.C., which confirms that it was a case of murder, on account of enmity, and not a case of robbery. The owner as well as the Insurance Company further raised objection with regards to the income of the deceased.

4. From the claimants' side, two witnesses were examined in support of the claim, namely, Mainaz (the widow of the deceased) and Rakesh Chauhan, who was a fellow passenger and an eye-witness to the incident. Neither the owner of the bus nor the Insurance Company examined any witness.

5. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the incident took place while the bus was moving and that the deceased (Naseem Khan) was shot because he resisted the robbers. While holding as above, the Tribunal observed that the first information report did not disclose that the deceased was murdered on account of any enmity. The Tribunal found that from the evidence on record including the statement of the eye-witness, it appeared to be a case of accidental death, on account of resistance offered to the robbers, while traveling in the bus. In support of its conclusion reliance was placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Rita Devi and others v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another : (2000) 5 SCC 113 . The Tribunal, thereafter, found that as the income of the deceased, as claimed, was not substantiated, therefore, annual income would be taken at Rs. 15,000/-. After deducting one third from the annual income, a multiplicand of Rs. 10,000/- was determined to which a multiplier of 17 was applied on finding that the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 32 yrs so as to arrive at Rs.1,70,000/- as an amount payable towards loss of dependency. To the aforesaid amount, Rs. 2,000/- was added towards funeral expenses; Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate; and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium so as to arrive at a total of Rs. 1,79,500/- as the compensation payable. As the vehicle was found to be insured with the Insurance Company (the appellant herein) and the driver of the vehicle was having a valid licence, and there was no breach of any condition of the contract of insurance, the Tribunal awarded the compensation against