Chattisgarh High Court
Puran And Ors. vs Suraj Patel And Anr. on 7 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: III(2003)ACC656, AIR2004CHH9, 2003(1)MPHT9(CG)
JUDGMENT Fakhruddin, J.
1. With consent of the learned Counsel for the both parties, heard finally.
2. The claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 21-7-2000 passed by the 4th Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, whereby the application filed by the claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of no fault liability has been rejected.
3. The applicants filed a claim petition on the ground that on 1-6-96, while Sukalu father of appellant Nos. 1 to 3 was travelling in a tractor bearing No. M.Q.L. 4694 and trolley bearing No. M.Q.L. 4695 from Surajpura to Bandhya, he fell down from the tractor due to rash and negligent driving of driver Kunwar Singh/respondent No. 2. He was treated but he died on 9-6-96 as a result of the motor accident. Regarding death, Crime No. 40/96 was registered at Police Station, Lalpur for under Sections 279, 325 and 338(A) of IPC. A prayer for grant of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was made. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their reply submitting that Sukalu did not die due to tractor accident and the respondent No. 2 did not drive the vehicle rashly and negligently. It was submitted that they were not responsible for payment of compensation. According to them, near Bandhamara Nalla, one Puravan and Saheb threw Sukalu from the tractor and as a result of the injuries received by Sukalu, he died. They prayed that the case be rejected. The Tribunal after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having considered the material on record rejected the claim petition.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2000) 5 SCC 113. In that case, an autorickshaw driver was murdered by unknown person for stealing the autorickshaw and the owner of autorickshaw was given compensation and a claim was filed by the claimant on account of death of the driver before the Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal and on appeal by the Insurance Company, the High Court set aside . the award granting compensation and thereafter the claimant filed civil appeal 'before the Supreme Court. Paragraphs 7 to 10 of the aforesaid judgment are relevant and quoted below:--
"7. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the Motor Vehicles Act does not define the word "accident". However, Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for payment of compensation for the death or injury suffered in a motor vehicle accident on a structured formula basis in Section 163A of the Act. Sub-section (1) of the said section says that:--
"163-A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim as the case may be."
8. Sub-section (2) of the said section also provides :
163-A. (2) In any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person."
9. A cogent reading of the above two sub-sections of Section 163A shows that victim or his heirs are entitled to claim from the owner/insurance company a compensation for death or permanent disablement suffered due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, without having to prove wrongful act or neglect or default of anyone. Thus it is clear, if it is established by the claimants that the death or disablement was caused due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle then they will be entitled for payment of compensation. In the present case, the contention of the Insurance Company which was accepted by the High Court is that the death of the deceased (Dasrath Singh) was not caused by an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. Therefore, we will have to examine the actual legal import of the words "death due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle".
10. The question, therefore is, can a murder be an accident in any given case ? There is no doubt that "murder", as it is understood, in the common parlance is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act normally have a motive against the victim for such killing. But there are also instances where murder can by accident on a given set of facts. The difference between a "murder" which is not an accident and a "murder which is an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. In our opinion, if the dominant intention of the Act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simpliciter, while if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder."
5. In the Motor Vehicles Act, word "accident" has not been defined. But in the absence of a definition of the word accident in Motor Vehicles Act, which was beneficial legislation, a liberal interpretation should be given so as to achieve the objects of the Act. The object of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act is to provide compensation to the victims of the accidents. The only difference between the two enactments is that so far as the Workmen's Compensation Act is concerned, it is confined to workmen as defined under that Act while the relief provided under Chapters X to XII of the Motor Vehicles Act is available to all the victims of accidents involving a motor vehicle. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act under which supports this conclusion, it is open to the claimants either to proceed to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act. A perusal of the objects of the two enactments clearly establishes that both the enactments are beneficial enactments operating in the same field, hence judicially accepted interpretation of the word "death" in the Workmen's Compensation Act is certainly applicable to the interpretation of the word "death" in the Motor Vehicles Act also.
6. In view of the above discussions, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards no fault liability is awarded to the claimants. The amount be deposited within a period of 30 days from today. The amount so deposited be disbursed to the claimants immediately thereafter. If the amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.