IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.4173 OF 2008 Between:- Jajula Rajeswari and another …Appellants A n d Thota Venkatratnam and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.4173 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 08-09-2005 in M.V.O.P.No.77 of 2002, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV-Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole (for short ‘the tribunal’), wherein the claim of the appellants herein for compensation, was dismissed. 2. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent are heard. Perused the records. 3. The appellants herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2 lakhs on account of death of the deceased Ashok, who was son of the first claimant and brother of the second claimant. According to them, the deceased was aged 20 years and was earning monthly income of Rs.2,500/- by running auto bearing No.AP 27 U 5422. On 30-09-2001, the deceased along with others went to Yerajerla from Ongole in the said auto and subsequently his dead body was found by the side of the road and the auto was also found missing. A case in Cr.No.74/2001 was registered under Section 302 IPC for the death of the deceased. Subsequently, the police after investigation filed a charge sheet and the accused were prosecuted for the offence under Section 302 IPC in S.C.No.135 of 2002. 4. The owner of the auto remained ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. On the strength of the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle Auto bearing No.AP 27 U 5422? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so to what extent and from whom? (iii) To what relief? 6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the tribunal held that it was a case of murder and not an accidental death and the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. Accordingly, the claim application was dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the auto was also stolen and the deceased was killed in the course of the same transaction. He relied on a decision in RITA DEVI (SMT) AND OTHERS v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., AND ANOTHER[1], wherein it was held that when the auto rickshaw was hired by certain persons and they with the object of stealing the vehicle, killed the driver, it was held to be an accidental murder. The said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The evidence on record clearly establish that the deceased along with some others was proceeding in the auto on that night from Ongole to Yerajerla in connection with engaging a girl for the purpose of prostitution and on account of disputes inter se between the deceased and other inmates of the auto and sexual jealousy, the deceased was killed by others and his dead body was found abandoned by the side of the road. Except that the deceased and others travelled in the auto prior to the occurrence, the said auto has nothing to do with the incident, resulting in the death of the deceased. The criminal court record i.e., Ex.A-1 F.I.R, Ex.A-2 scene of offence report, Ex.A-3 inquest report, Ex.A-4 post- mortem certificate and Ex.A-5 copy of the judgment in S.C.No.135 of 2002 have all established the fact that it was a case of homicide and not an accidental death, that too arising out of usage of a motorcycle. The auto was in no way connected with or used in the commission of the offence of murder, except that prior to the occurrence, the deceased and others travelled by the said auto. When the deceased is alleged to have been killed by the assailants due to disputes with him and on account of specific motive, namely sexual jealousy, it cannot be said to be a case of accidental death arising out of user of the motor vehicle. The finding of the tribunal holding that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act does not, therefore, call for any interference by this Court. 9. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 07th July, 2010. Lrkm. [1] (2000) 5 SCC 113