Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Shri Arubendra Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the claimants supports the award and submits that no indulgence is required except for the modification which was allowed by this court in the appeal filed by the claimants, inasmuch as the statutory rate of interest was not awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.

I have gone through the pleadings and the judgment of Rita Devi (supra). In para 10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has distinguished the "murder" which is an accident and "murder" which is not an accident. It is held that it depends that whether a murder is an accident or not on the proximity of the cause of such murder. 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 the 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.

In the absence of any such material, the death of Driver even if statement of Kamleshwar Sahu is accepted will be an accidental death because intention of the cleaner as attributed by Kamleshwar Sahu was to take money from Driver Suresh Sahu and not to simply put an end to his life. Therefore, even in the light of law laid down in Rita Devi (supra), this appeal for the failure of the Insurance Company to bring on record cogent material to distinguish murder simpliciter and the murder occurring out of an accident, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.