A death caused intentionally does not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle, thus barring compensation claims under relevant vehicle regulations.

1. This appeal by the claimant - appellant is directed against the award, dated 22nd December, 2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.TS(MAC)128 of 2000, whereby he dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant holding that the deceased did not die due to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident or due to the negligence of the driver and is, therefore, not entitled to get any compensation.

2. The claimant is the widow of Late Sri Rebati Debnath and mother of victim Sukhlal Debnath. She filed a claim petition on 08.03.2000 under S.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act praying for compensation on account of the death of her son in a motor vehicle accident.

3. In this claim petition it was alleged that the deceased was travelling in a 'jeep' bearing registration No.TRT - 2187. According to the claimant, on 04.09.1998 at 7.00 p.m. her son Sukhlal Debnath along with several other passengers was travelling from Takrarjala to Jampuijala in the vehicle in question. She alleged that the victim and the other passengers had requested the driver of the jeep not to ply the vehicle without police escort because Takarjala - Jampuijala road was extremist infested area and many incidents of kidnapping, murder etc. had taken place on this road. However, the driver of the said vehicle did not pay heed to the request of the passengers and drove the vehicle and some extremists fired open to the jeep. It is alleged that some passengers were seriously beaten by the extremists in the jeep and 10/12 persons were kidnapped by them. According to the claimant, due to the attack by the extremists her son was seriously injured and he was taken to the Takarjala hospital from where he was referred to G.B. P hospital, Agartala but died on the way due to the injury received. It was alleged that the deceased was a businessman earning more than Rs.5,000/- per month.

4. The vehicle in question is, admittedly, owned by Sri Kartik Chandra Saha and insured with the New India Insurance Company. The driver of the vehicle was neither named in the claim petition nor was he made a party to the claim petition. The petition was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 01.03.2005 being not maintainable. This order was challenged before the Ghauhati High Court and on 20.06.2007 the Gauhati High Court allowed the appeal on the ground that this question should be decided after evidence of the party is recorded. Thereafter, on 15.07.2008 the petitioner moved an application for amendment praying that the petition be treated to be one under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and not under S.163 - A. This application was allowed.

5. The petitioner examined herself and one other PW. On behalf of the insurance company one witness was examined. The learned Tribunal relying upon the record of the police and the allegations made in the FIR held that the accident had not occurred in the manner claimed by the petitioner and in fact the deceased had been shot by the militants not while travelling in the jeep but after he had got down from the jeep and had been captured by the extremists while he was trying to escape from the clutches of the extremists.

6. Mr. S K Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant, submits that the learned Tribunal has relied upon the FIR and the same could not have been relied upon. According to Mr. Dutta, the police paper i.e. FIR, charge sheet etc. could not have been relied upon by the Tribunal to decide the case. His next submi