JUDGMENT :

Ajai Tyagi, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. This appeal has been preferred by appellants/claimants against the judgment and order dated 03.02.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chandauli/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Chandauli (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.107 of 2013, Smt. Renu Devi and others v. Gufran Ahmad and others by which the claim petition of appellants was rejected by learned tribunal.

3. The incident having taken place is not in dispute. The dispute is whether said incident is covered under Sections, 165, 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short M.V. Act) or is a murder, the legal representatives of deceased whether are entitled to any compensation under M.V. Act is the crux of the litigation.

4. The brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 31.5.2013 at about 01.45 a.m. (night), deceased Ashok Kumar Yadav, who was constable in U.P Police Department, was on duty with S.H.O. and other police personnels and were in Government Jeep No.UP 66 G 0072, near Madho Singh Toll Plaza within the jurisdiction of Police Station Orai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, a truck bearing No.UP 70 CT 7486 came on the spot and the Police enquired from the truck driver regarding the goods loaded in the truck. On making this enquiry, the truck driver started the truck and ran away from there. The Police jeep chased the aforesaid truck and after overtaking the truck, the jeep crossed the toll plaza and stopped the truck and when police personnel signalled, the truck driver to stop the truck, the truck driver deliberately broke the barrier of toll plaza by driving rashly and negligently and damaged the barrier and hit the jeep from behind. Consequently, the jeep was fleeing in air and it overturned. In this accident, Constable Ashok Singh Yadav sustained serious injuries due to which he died during treatment.

5. The Motor accident claims tribunal held that it was a case of murder and not a case of rash and negligent driving by the truck driver. The tribunal also held that the murder of deceased was caused using the truck as a weapon and if any vehicle is used as a weapon then no compensation can be granted to the claimants under M.V. Act and the claim petition preferred by appellants who were legal representatives of deceased was rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that death of the deceased had taken place while he was in police jeep, hence it was death while using motor vehicle. It is also submitted that at the time of accident, the truck driver was driving the truck rashly and negligently. The truck hit the jeep at a very high speed from behind causing accident.

7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for appellants that learned Tribunal erred in holding that the death of the deceased was murder simplicitor and not accidental death. Learned counsel submitted that under the M.V. Act if an accident arises due to use of motor vehicle then claimants are entitled to compensation. Learned counsel for appellants has relied on the judgments titled Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2000 ACJ 801 (SC), and Ambalika Singh and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2018 (1) TAC 207.

8. Learned counsel for Insurance company vehemently submitted that the death of deceased was consequence of planned murder by the truck driver. It was not an accident, but the truck driver intentionally hit the jeep, there was mens rea on the part of the truck driver. Learned counsel also submitted that the first information report of the occurrence was lodged under Sections 307 and 302 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) along with other Sections and as per contents of F.I.R., the truck driver intentionally hit the police jeep. It is also submitted that the charge sheet is also filed under Section 302 of I.P.C. It is further submitted that it is proved that the a