FAO No.42 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.42 of 1992 Date of Decision. 12.08.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh Branch Office, Manimajra, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Prabhu Ram son of Sh. Angan Lal and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The insurance company denies liability on the ground that the deceased was run over by the insured's vehicle with the murderous intention and it was not merely a case of rash and negligent driving but a case of murder, which will fall outside the jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also pointed out that criminal case had also been registered against the driver of the truck and the case was pending before the Sessions Court, Chandigarh. The details of the criminal case are not known but evidence was adduced to the effect that PW-2 Ramesh Kumar admitted that case has been filed against the driver Balwan Singh for offence under Section 302, 307 IPC. Ramesh Kumar himself was FAO No.42 of 1992 -2- a complainant in the FIR where he had alleged that the driver intentionally drove the vehicle towards them to kill all the three when they were sitting in the park. The Tribunal, however, rejected the defence plea and still held that a criminal case lodged against the driver or the result of a criminal case would have no bearing on the decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal reasoned that the statement of Ramesh Kumar was his own perception of the incident and from the past enmity with the driver. It further held that version of the incident as given by him did not exclude the probability of it being merely an accident and not an act of deliberate killing. In the statement of the driver himself he had contended that the accident had taken place on account of mechanical defect in the vehicle when it went out of control and the deceased had come in front of him. However, he did not step into the witness box to support his own version but this is merely pointed out to show that the driver had a different version to give. I find the reasoning of the Tribunal quite appropriate. 2. This issue has not been without any precedent. It has come in various situations. In Smt. Rita Devi and others Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another AIR 2000 SC 1930, the deceased was a driver of an auto-rickshaw and it was suggested at the trial that the passengers who were travelling in the auto-rickshaw committed an act of felony of stealing of auto- rickshaw and in the course of achieving the object, they had eliminated the driver of the auto-rickshaw. The stealing of auto- rickshaw was the subject of felony and the murder that was caused FAO No.42 of 1992 -3- in the process of stealing was taken as an accidental act in the act of stealing the auto-rickshaw. The death was, therefore, taken to be an accident in the process of committing the theft and the claimants were entitled to compensation. The expression “use of the motor vehicle” itself has been given an expansive interpretation by Courts and even an act of entering entering into bus by a person and trying to snatch a bag from a passenger, on resistance, when the passenger was killed, it was held by the Patna High Court that the death arose out of an accident by the use of a motor cycle in Ranju Devi and others Vs. Pawan Kumar Patwari and others 2004 1 ACJ 230. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dongkholam 2007 ACJ 1973, the driver of the vehicle had been fore-warned not to proceed ahead, on an apprehension that miscreants were setting up to kill indiscriminately. The driver disregarded the warning and went ahead and 30 passengers in the bus were killed by miscreants. It was held that the claims were sustainable as motor accidents though it was brazen act of terrorism. It was observed that the death was a sudden unforeseen occurrence for the victims. It may be noticed that the perception to the person killed in the accident as an unforeseen event itself was taken to be sufficient to the maintainability of the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Anita 2007 ACJ 1357, the driver of the vehicle was taken away to an isolated spot by five associates who had hired the taxi and did away with him. The Allahabad High Court held that the claim was maintainable. In Bangalore Metropolitan Corporation Vs. Raman FAO No.42 of 1992 -4- 2007 ACJ 954, the Karnataka High Court was considering the case of a passenger on a transport corporation bus, who had an altercation with some miscreants attempting to pick his pocket. He was done to death by the miscreants. This the Court said could amount to intentional murder and case would not lie. This is the only judgment amongst the reported decision that seems to have held that a murder that took place within the bus would not give rise to an action for damages. The Karnataka High Court also stated in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mohindinbi and others 2007 ACJ 1421 that when an official, who had the benefit of use of a jeep, used it for the purpose of recovery of loans and in an altercation that came up, the driver of the vehicle was beaten to death. The claim against the insurer as a motor accident was held untenable on the ground that there was no nexus in the death or the use of the vehicle. The view taken by the Karnataka High Court seems to be out of sync with the general trend obtaining through the several decisions of the various Courts of India. 3. The criminal law itself is undergoing remarkable change with a focus on compensation to victims and their family. The Fatal Accident Act itself make possible the claim for death arising by a criminal offence (see (1991) LJR 134 (P&H); AIR 1916 Lah 133; Jagannath Singh Vs. Pragi Kunwar AIR 1949 448). There still exists a gray area whether an intentional death caused by a driver could ever be taken to find a cause of action before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It is for long been believed that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in so far as it provides for a FAO No.42 of 1992 -5- forum for adjudication for death or injury addresses the claims only on the common law principle of tortious wrong. There have been statutory dilutions where even without proof of negligence, claims are admissible in situation contemplated under Section 163-A under a structured formula or a situation of claim for death or injury to a workman against the employer and the insurer under the Workmen's Compensation Act, although the death or injury could have been the result of his own negligence. The Motor Vehicles Act is a social welfare legislation in so far it provides for establishing a Tribunal with powers to adjudicate claims relating to compensation. It should be interpreted with the object of securing benefit to a victim or his representative. The Tribunal shall only see whether death or injury is on account of use of a motor vehicle and that the victim was not responsible for the untoward incident. For an objective onlooker, it was an accident by the use of a motor vehicle. The death ought to be seen as a result of an accident. The deceased or any other witness may have known something more to suspect the criminal intentions of the driver but it exists merely in the realm of conjecture. It ought not to cloud the perception of a Judge, who addresses the claims of the legal representatives. 4. The Tribunal has correctly approached the issue and I affirm the finding. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 12, 2010 Pankaj*