FAO No.427 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.427 of 1987 DATE OF DECISION: January 7, 2011 JUGAL KISHORE ...APPELLANT VERSUS KULDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: NONE FOR THE APPELLANT. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2. MR. PAUL S. SAINI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation on the ground that the injury inflicted on the claimant by the motor vehicle was intentional and therefore, not an accident. The petition was consequently dismissed. 2. The claimant was a Constable and the accident is said to have taken place at the time when he had signalled the offending insured's truck to be stopped. The vehicle did not stop and in the meanwhile yet another truck HRS-9090 had come. The contention of the claimant was that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently and the driver is reported to have shouted that he would do away with him. The truck was reported to have struck on the left thigh and he fell at a distance. 3. The intentional alleged to have caused by the driver of motor FAO No.427 of 1987 -2- vehicle against the police officer who was attempting to stop the vehicle cannot ultimately partake the character of an accident. The whole scheme of compensation provided under the Motor Vehicles Act is in the realm of tort, which is a civil wrong, and a negligent act could be a specie of tort. The criminal intention to defy the arm of law enforcing authority cannot be normally entertained by the Tribunal. The dismissal of the petition on such a ground was, therefore, justified. 4. However, I would still hold that even a criminal act causing injury will give rise to civil action for damages. If a suit had been instituted, this Court would still have been a Court of appeal and the Tribunal had already found that the claimant had suffered disability to the extent of 15%. He had a fracture of leg and was hospitalized. I would award `25000/- for the injuries suffered by him and the same be payable only by the owner and the driver. The insurance cover cannot survive for a claim of compensation for an intentional criminal act and consequently the award of the Tribunal is set aside and the claimant shall be entitled to 25000/- and the same be paid within four weeks of the receipt of certified copy of this order. The liability shall be only on respondents No.1 and 2. 5. There is no representation for the appellant and I have proceeded to dispose of the case on the basis of records, only in order that a case involving merely an injury need not be detained for the presence of a counsel. A copy of the order be sent by the Registry to the party directly. January 7, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE