Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Gauri vs Mohammad Belal on 1 July, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:29598
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1774 of 2019
1. Smt. Gauri W/o Late Tiharu Patel Aged About 30 Years Occupation-
Dependent, R/o Village Godihari, Police Station Sarangarh, Tahsil
Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
2. Minor Simran Patel D/o Late Tiharu Patel, Through The Natural
Guardian No.1, Aged About 5 Years, Occupation- Study, R/o Village
Godihari, Police Station Sarangarh, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
... Appellants-claimants
versus
1. Mohammad Belal S/o Mohd. Shakir Aged About 20 Years Occupation-
Driver, R/o Near Tahsil Office Sarangarh, District Raigarh (CG).
2. Branch Manager United Insurance Company Limited, Sarla Vila
Complex Raigarh, District Raigarh, (CG)
... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.N.Pusty, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 01/7/2025
1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal challenging the order dated 23.7.2019 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.4/2017 whereby the Claims Tribunal while deciding preliminary issue held that application for grant of compensation is not 2 maintainable.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') for grant of compensation on account of death of Tiharu Patel. It was pleaded that on 28.8.2014 while Tiharu was on his duty at Mohammed Abbas Ali Petrol Pump, Sarangarh, he was kidnapped in Bolero Vehicle No.CG13-Q-2813, strangulated to death and thereafter his body was thrown in Hirakund Dam, which was recovered on 30.8.2014.
3. Non-applicant No.1 remained absent before the Claims Tribunal and was proceeded ex-parte. Non-applicant No.2 Insurance Company filed its written statement specifically raising objection regarding maintainability of application filed under Section166 of the Act of 1988 on the ground that death of deceased did not occur due to use of motor vehicle, Bolero, but it was a murder.
4. On the pleadings of the respective parties, the Claims Tribunal framed a preliminary issue with respect to maintainability of claim application under the provisions of the Act of 1988 and after hearing the counsel for respective parties on the preliminary issue, dismissed claim application as not maintainable by recording that death of deceased Tiharu was not in a road accident caused by a motor vehicle rather the death of deceased was the result of a criminal activity.
5. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that the Claims Tribunal dismissed the application of appellants only considering that death of deceased did not arise out of an accident caused by the offending vehicle without appreciating that it is an accidental murder which had 3 arisen out of the use of the offending vehicle. Hence, the dismissal of the application by the Claims Tribunal was not proper.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 would submit that death of Tiharu Patel was not accidental one and as a matter of fact, it was simple case of murder of deceased by the driver of offending vehicle i.e. non-applicant No.1, who was found guilty by trial Court and the same was affirmed by the High Court. Cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation as opined in the postmortem report. Simply because the offending vehicle was used in commission of murder of the deceased, it does not bring the case of appellants within the purview of the motor vehicular accident entitling them seek to compensation under the Act of 1988.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case including impugned order.
8. Perusal of contents of FIR, which is available in record, would show that on 29.8.2014 brother of deceased lodged report in concerned police station suspecting that respondent No.1 had kidnapped his brother. Dead body of the deceased was recovered from Hirakund Dam on 30.8.2014. Postmortem examination of the body of deceased was conducted in Community Health Centre, Sarangarh and as per postmortem report, the doctor, who conducted post mortem, has specifically opined that cause of death of deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation and death was homicidal in nature.
9. As per charge sheet filed by police against non-applicant No.1 and other co-accused, wife of deceased gave birth to a daughter and on the pretext of the daughter being born out of illicit relationship between 4 non-applicant No.1 and wife of deceased, which was going on for last about two years, dispute arose between the deceased and non- applicant no.1 and on that account, on 28/08/2014 at about 08:00 PM, Mohammad Bilal (A-1) i.e. non-applicant No.1 herein, along with three co-accused persons, with the intention of causing death of Tiharu Patel, took him to Mohan Dhaba on the pretext of giving party, administered sleeping pills in the cold drink/liqour consumed by deceased Tiharu Patel and when he became unconscious, the accused persons took him to Hirakund Dam in Bolero vehicle, there they strangulated him with a plastic rope and thereafter, drowned his dead body in the dam.
10. As submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2, learned trial Court finding the death of deceased Tiharu Patel to be homicidal in nature and further finding non-applicant No.1 herein to be the perpetrator of the crime, convicted and sentenced him for offences punishable under Section 302/34, 364/34 and 201/34 of IPC. Criminal appeal filed by non-applicant No.1 against his conviction has also been dismissed by the High Court.
11. Pleadings and evidence brought on record by the claimants would show that the deceased was kidnapped from his work place and thereafter his dead body was recovered from Hirakund Dam. Any attempt was not made on the part of the claimants to plead an accidental murder, nor any evidence was brought on record to show that death of the deceased was caused due to an accident which was not an intended murder. In the case of Rita Devi (Smt.) and others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another, reported in (2000) 5 5 SCC 113, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 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.
12. From the above discussed facts and documents, in particular postmortem report wherein cause of death of deceased was 'asphyxia due to strangulation' and nature of death was 'homicidal', it is clear that the dominant intention of the act of felony was to kill the deceased (murdered) and such a killing was not an accidental murder but is a murder simpliciter. Murder of the deceased was not caused in furtherance of any other felonious act and as such, the murder in this case was not an accidental murder, but just murder simpliciter.
13. In view of the above, finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that death of Tiharu Patel was not due to an accident caused by a motor vehicle (offending vehicle) and as such, claim application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 is not maintainable, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being meritless is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Digitally
SYED signed
ROSHAN by SYED
ZAMIR ROSHAN Sd/-
ALI ZAMIR
ALI (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-