Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material placed on record.

23. The appeals are admitted. =(On what date) and when it came for final hearing.

24. It is the case of the appellant that the learned Tribunal grossly erred by adjudicating the claim petition and the same is not maintainable under Section 166 of the MV Act as it is a clear case of murder simpliciter rather than an accidental murder since there is lack of proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending car. Further, the driver deliberately and intentionally hit the motorcycle in order to kill the riders which is further corroborated by the material placed on record such as the FIR and the chargesheet. While placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court passed in Sukhdev Singh vs. Delhi State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2003) 7 SCC 433, and Rita Devi & Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 5 SCC 113, it has been contended that as per the settled position of law, when the dominant intention of the act of felony is to kill any particular person, then such killing is not an accidental murder but a murder simpliciter.

42. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle has been charge-sheeted by the police under Sections 307/354(D)/506/34/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, thus, the driver of the offending vehicle ought to have been made solely liable for payment of compensation as the act of killing Ct. Manoj is murder simpliciter and not accidental murder.

45. Further, upon perusal of the testimony of the driver before the Investigation Officer, it is observed by this Court that there is an absence of any personal enmity of the driver with the deceased. Thus, the term „murder simpliciter‟ cannot be ascertained in the instant case due to absence of essential ingredients.

46. As revealed in the disclosure statement, the driver‟s motive was aided by a personal grievance against Ct. Shivani, who had refused his marriage proposal, prompting a desire for revenge. Given this context, the death of Ct. Manoj and the injuries sustained by Ct. Shivani do not fall under the category of murder simpliciter as the killing occurred in the course of an act directed at someone else, hence, the intention to kill Ct. Manoj cannot be prima facie, ascertained. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal‟s findings concur with the observations made herein above, establishing that the deceased‟s death was contingent upon his presence with Ct. Shivani during the incident.

48. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has clarified that murder is generally understood as a deliberate and felonious act with intent to kill, however, there could be instances where a murder might be considered as an accidental occurrence, depending on the proximity and nature of the felonious act leading to death. The distinction lies in the perpetrator‟s dominant intention as per which, when the said intent was specifically to kill a particular individual, such an act would be considered a murder simpliciter and not an accidental murder. In such cases, the insurance company would not be liable for compensation, and the responsibility would fall on the accused or the owner of the vehicle. However, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court also acknowledged scenarios where a death occurs in the course of a felonious act wherein the offender did not originally intend to commit a murder, and in such cases, the insurance company could be liable for compensation.