Assessing liability in motor vehicle accidents requires determining the intent behind actions, distinguishing between accidental and intentional acts.

1. Whether the brutal killing of two persons by the respondent No. 7 / driver (who has been found guilty of murder under S.302, Indian Penal Code and has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court) using the truck as a weapon and crushing them down, could be treated as an 'accident' or as 'out of the use of a motor vehicle' so as to award compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased, on the strength of a policy issued by the appellant insurer? The finding of the Tribunal that the said incident is an accident and the appellant insurer is liable to pay the compensation, is put to challenge in these appeals.

2. Heard Mr. Dashrath Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurer, Mr. Shivendu Pandya, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents - claimants and Mr. S.S. Rajput, the learned counsel representing the respondent / owner.

3. Bare minimum facts involved in these appeals are that on 21.12.2008 at about 9.15 p.m., some altercation occurred between the driver of the truck bearing No. CG 07 - J 1169 and the deceased, Ashok Singh, who was standing with his friend Ram Sewak Jaiswal. On getting provoked, the respondent No. 7 took the vehicle and crushed down the deceased Ashok Singh and his friend Ram Sewak Jaiswal; pursuant to which the police registered a crime against the respondent No. 7 under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

4. With reference to the loss of life of the deceased, the legal representatives filed two separate claim petitions under S.163 - A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act') before the Tribunal claiming compensation. The claim was resisted by the respondents - driver and owner of the truck contending that no such incident had ever taken place with involvement of their vehicle, simultaneously adding that the vehicle was covered under a valid policy and if at all any liability is found, it shall be shifted to the shoulders of the insurance company.

5. The appellant insurer took up a specific contention that the incident was not an 'accident' coming within the purview of the MV Act so as to award any compensation in terms of the policy issued under S.147 of the MV Act. It was pointed out as an instance of murder, using the vehicle as a weapon and as such, no liability could be fastened on the insurer. Evidence was adduced from both the sides before the Tribunal. On conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the death of the persons concerned was due to an 'accident' because of the use of the offending vehicle and that the claimants were entitled to get compensation under the policy. It was accordingly that a total sum of Rs. 4,24,000 was awarded with interest as specified in the case of the claimants in Claim Case No. 122 of 2010, forming the subject - matter of MAC No. 182 of 2013 and a sum of Rs. 4,43,000 in the case of the claimants in Claim Case No. 67 of 2009, forming the subject - matter of MAC No. 183 of 2013. The amount due was directed to be satisfied by the appellant insurer in view of the valid policy existing as on date, the correctness of which is put to challenge in these appeals as mentioned already.

6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurer, the incident is nothing short of 'murder simpliciter' which can never be treated as an accident so as to fix the liability upon the insurer of the vehicle, as it was used as a weapon to meet the task. The learned counsel sought to place reliance on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , 2000 ACJ 801 (SC), to contend that the 'dominant intention' was to kill the d