IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.No. l^^)l /2004 si g -- ir^f^ ^ tliVIii ^ APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS ,!? ^ ^ ^ ^/ ^ Jr?" o.7 ^^s: fc^^7 ^l^ ^: \1^~N<?' ^ If} /i/ jffj ^/J L- Ambika Namdev, S/o. Sona Aged about 60 years. 2. Hirondiya, W/o. Ambika, Aged aboui 55 years. 3. Hira Namdev, S/o. Ambika, Aged about 19 years. All are resident of Nawapara, SLiraxAir, P.S. fil Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS .NON-APPLICANTS 1. z" Audhesh Singh Yadav, S/o.Vashisht Singh, Aged about 30 years, OccupatJon-Driver, R/o. House of Shiva Gond, Pratappur, Naka AmbiKapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) (DRIVER) Prithvi Raj Khatik, S/o. Ramswarup, Aged about 30 years, R/o. Shanti Nagar, ]agda!pur, Present Address Pratappur, Near Naka Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (OWNEROFTHETRUCK) ^^ 3. Rajesh Kumar Soni, S/o. ^ ^Ramlakhan Soni/ Aged about 25 years, R/o. Bazarpara, Surajpur, Tahsil sc District Surguja (C.G.) (OWNEROF THE MOTORCYCLE ) 4. ^ ^ The Onental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Ambikapur, District Surgiija (C.G.) (INSURER) MISC.APPEAL U/S.173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 ;'€l5^. "V L HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR APPELLANTS Claimants M.A.No, 1091 of 2004 Ambika Namdev & Others Versus -^ RESPONDENTS : Audhesh Singh Yadav & Others Non-apDlicants APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal. Present : Shri Ashok Shukla, Advocate forthe appellants. Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate for respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 28.10.2010) Per : I.M. Quddusi, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appeliants against the order dated 24.07.2004, passed by the Ist Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Surajpur,Distt. Surguj'a (for short 'the Tribunal') in daim case No. 149/02, dismissing the claim petition ofthe claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the appellants are that, on 15.02.2004, Darshan (since deceased) while coming towards Surajpur from Bishrampur along with respondent No. 3 on the motorcyde bearing registration No. CG-14-1182, near Kurva turn (Keshav Nagar) due to not providing side by the driver of the Truck bearing registration No. MP-25-0795 lost his balance and met with an accident with the same Truck as a resujt of which he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. __^ '^^^' Jj L... 2 . f31 3. The claimants preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- for the death of deceased in the said accident. 4. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that 'rt was a murder case and as such the claimants are not entitled to get compensation under the MV Act. 5. Shri Ashok Shukla, tearned counse! appearing for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal has erred in dismissingthe claim petition as the Tribuna! has not given proper findings regarding murder of the deceased and the appea! deserves to be allowed. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Rita Devi (Smt.) and Others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another1. The Supreme Court has observed in para 10 ofthe said judgment as under: "The question, therefore is, can a murder be an acddent 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 kiiiing. But there are also jnstances where 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 our opinion, if the dominant intention of the Act of feiony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simpticiter, while if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused In furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder." 12000(5)SCC113 "•I^, •/::A^'^ w ^ 6. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the Lower Court Record. 7. There are two types of murder one is accidental murder and the other one is simple murder, but the Tribunal has not gjven its finding on the question whether it was a accidental murder or murder simplidter on the basis of evidence availabje to it, therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter requires re- consideration by the Tribunal concerned. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The order dated 27.07.2004 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal concerned, for decision afresh. 9. The claim petition of the claimants shalt be restored to its original number and same shall be decided afresh after providing an opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidences, to amend the pleadings and to fi.ie documents, if any. 10. Needless to mention that the Tribunal shal! decide the claim petition as early as possible preferably within a period of sjx months from the date of receipt of LCR. The LCR shall be returned forthwith. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Sahu