% HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA(C)No. 105 of 2010 Appellant Non-applicant No.2 Respondents 1 ^' Branch Manager, United Indiatnsurance Co. Ltd. Branch Offlce Mendekar Complex, Rajendra Nagar, Square Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). Versus Puran Sai, son of late Dhivram, aged about 62 years. 2. Smt. Lalmaniya, wlfe of Shri Puran Sai, aged about 56 years, Both Caste Vishwakarma, R/o Sadak Dafai, Haldibadi, Police Station Chirmiri, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea (Chhattisgarh). Claimants 3. Ajit Kishore Das, son of Shri Premdas, aged about 57 years, R/o Sadak Dafai, Haldibadi, Police Station Chirmiri, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea (Chhattisgarh). Non-appUcant No. 1 Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.l Present : Shri HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Pragya Singh, Advocate for the appellant. 1. ORALORDER (Passed on 25th day of March, 2010) Heard on admission. This is insurer's appeal directed against the award dated 23.09.2009, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (for short Tribunal') in claim case No. 59/07. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: ^ I. on 10.06.2007, Anand Kumar (since deceased) was driving the offending vehicle (Bolero Car) bearing registration No. CG-10/T/3231, owned by the respondent No. 3 and insured by the appellant, the deceased was going from Chirmiri to Ambikapur, it is stated that the deceased was murdered by some unknown person during journey and the vehicle was taken over by them. II. The claimants i.e. parents ofthe deceased preferred an application/claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. against the owner and insurer ofthe vehicle claiming compensation tothe tune of Rs. 13,60,000/-. III. The appellant, by filling its return speciflcally pleaded that since the deceased was murdered therefore, this is not a case of accident and application is not maintainable. It was further stated that the said oar was being used for carrying other persons as passengers, therefore the vehicle being plied in breach of condition of policy. IV. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions made, held the application/claim petition maintainable and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,75.100/- as compensation to the claimants holding the appellant responsjble for its payment. 3. Shri Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant did not dispute the liability of the insurance company on the ground that vehicle was carrying passengers in the said vehicle in view of the fact that the policy issued is package policy which covers the liability of the occupant of offending vehicle. However, he would submit that this is a case of murder and not an accident and therefore the claim petition itself was not maintainable. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the appellant, perused the record and order impugned. The contention raisedby Shri Agrawal hasalready been settled by the Supreme Court in case of Rita Devi (Smt.) and others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another1. Para 10 of its judgment reads as under: "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 here murder can be 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 ouropinion, if the dominant intention oftheActoffelony isto kill any particular person ttien such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simplidter, while if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other fetonious act then such murder is an accidentel murder." In the instant case, the cause of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of other felonious act i.e. taking over of vehicle and the murder is an accidental murder which is covered under the Act in vtew of decision of the Supreme Court in the above referred case. No other points have been raised by the appellant counsel. 12QOO(5)SCC113 8. In view of above, in the facts circumstances of the case, 1 do not find and illegality or irregularity in the award warranting jnterference of this court. The appeal, being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sahu