THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER M.A.C.M.ANo.1126 of 2011

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal– cum–XXI Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P No.1660 of 2007, whereunder the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation in favour of the respondents/claimants on account of the death of Sri E.Madhava Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’).

2. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material available on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that while the deceased was discharging his duties as a Police Officer, he was asked by the Assistant Commissioner of Police to stop the offending lorry for checking. The driver of lorry bearing No.AP-9Y-7764 drove in a rash and negligent manner and failed to stop the vehicle though he was signalled to take the vehicle aside by the deceased. The driver sped away from the scene, as such the deceased along with his staff chased the lorry and stopped the vehicle at A-1 Junction, Nampally. When the deceased got down from his vehicle to approach the lorry, the driver started the vehicle, drove the same in a dangerous manner and hit the deceased, as result of which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died while being shifted to the hospital. Hence, the claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation.

4. On perusal of the material available on record, the Tribunal held that the death of the deceased was a result of an accident and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

5. According to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, using a vehicle to commit murder as in the present case will not amount to an accident. The Tribunal had committed an error in granting compensation, when death of the deceased cannot be associated with accident but a deliberate act of killing by the driver.

6. The learned counsel would submit that since the accident is not defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the general definition or meaning has to be considered to read into the provision under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 wherein it is held that the compensation can only be granted which arises out of a road accident. The learned counsel submits that the meaning of accident as hereunder:

“According to Wikipedia, an accident is an unintended, normally unwanted event that was not directly caused by humans.

According to Merriam dictionary, an accident is an event that is not planned or intended.

According to dictionary.com, an accident is an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage or loss.

According to Cambridge dictionary, an accident is something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and that often damages something or injuries to someone.

According to encyclopedia Britannica, an accident is a sudden event that is not planned or intended and that causes damages or injuries.”

Since the competent Sessions Court had tried the driver of the lorry for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and found him guilty for the offence of murder the vehicle in question. It cannot be held to be an accident to entail claim of compensation by the dependents of the deceased.

7. The driver of the offending vehicle was admittedly convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for murder and also Sections 132/184 and 134/187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for driving dangerously and not following the rules laid down for driving the vehicle. 8. According to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the offending vehicle was used as a weapon to commit murder of the deceased. The policy only covers an accident and the compensation is paid in the event of any accident and not when the vehicle is used to commit any murder. It cannot be calle