Case: Smt. Rita Devi  Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.&amp;Anr

entirely different. She also contends on the facts of this case no proximity could be presumed between the murder of the driver and the stealing of the auto rickshaw. We are unable to accept this contention advanced on behalf of the respondents. We do not see how the object of the two Acts, namely, the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmens Compensation Act are in any way different. In our opinion, the relevant object of both the Acts are to provide compensation to the victims of accidents. The only difference between the two enactments is that so far as the Workmens Compensation Act is concerned, it is confined to workmen as defined under that Act while the relief provided under Chapters X to XII of the Motor Vehicles Act is available to all the victims of accidents involving a motor vehicle. In this conclusion of ours we are supported by Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act as per which provision, it is open to the claimants either to proceed to claim compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act. A perusal of the objects of the two enactments clearly establishes that both the enactments are beneficial enactments operating in the same field, hence judicially accepted interpretation of the word `death in Workmens Compensation Act is, in our opinion applicable to the interpretation of the word death in the Motor Vehicles Act also. 14. In the case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Anr. v. Vatschala Uttam More, 1991(3) SCC 530 this Court while pronouncing on the interpretation of Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 held as follows : "Section 92-A was in the nature of a beneficial legislation enacted with a view to confer the benefit of expeditious payment of a limited amount by way of compensation to the victims of an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle on the basis of no fault liability. In the matter of interpretation of a beneficial legislation the approach of the courts is to adopt a construction which advances the beneficent purpose underlying the enactment in preference to a construction which tends to defeat that purpose." 15. In that case in regard to the contention of proximity between the accident and the explosion that took place this Court held : "This would show that as compared to the expression "caused by", the expression "arising out of" has a wider connotation. The expression "caused by" was used in Section 95(1)(b)(i) and (ii) and 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. In Section 92-A, Parliament, however, chose to use the expression "arising out of" which indicates that for the purpose of awarding compensation under Section 92-A, the causal relationship between the use of the motor vehicle and the accident resulting in death or permanent disablement is not required to be direct and proximate and it can be less immediate. This would imply that accident should be connected with the use of the motor vehicle but the said connection need not be direct and immediate. This construction of the expression "arising out of the use of a motor vehicle" in Section 92-A enlarges the field of protection made available to the victims of an accident and is in consonance with the beneficial object underlying the enactment." 16. In the instant case, as we have noticed the facts, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the murder of the deceased (Dasarath Singh) was due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. Therefore, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled for compensation as claimed by them and the High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the death of Dasarath Singh was not caused by an accident involving the use of motor vehicle.17. This leaves us to consider the second point raised before us by the counsel for the appellant. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company purported to be under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable because prior permission of the Court as required was not obtained by the appellants. In support of this contention of the appellants, reliance is placed on a judgments of this court in the case Shankarayya and Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., 1998(3) SCC 140. In the said judgment a Division Bench of this court held : "The Insurance Company when impleaded as a party by the Court can be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits only if the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170 are found to be satisfied and for that purpose the Insurance Company has to obtain an order in writing from the Tribunal and which should be a reasoned order by the Tribunal. Unless that procedure is followed, the Insurance Company cannot have a wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defence. It is true that the claimants themselves had joined Respondent 1 insurance Company in the claim petition but that was done with a view to thrust the statutory liability on the Insurance Company on account of the contract of the insurance. That was not an order of the Court itself permitting the Insurance Company which was impleaded to avail of a larger defence on merits on being satisfied on the aforesaid two conditions mentioned in Section 170. Consequently, it must be held that on the facts of the present case, Respondent 1 Insurance Company was not entitled to file an appeal on merits of the claim which was awarded by the Tribunal." 18. We respectfully agree with the ration laid down in the above case and in view of the fact admittedly the Insurance Company had not obtained leave from the tribunal before filing the above appeal. We are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company before the High Court was not maintainable in law.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]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 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 felony is the kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simplicitor, 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.Applying the principles laid down in the above cases to the facts of the case in hand, we find that the deceased, a driver of the auto rickshaw, was duty bound to have accepted the demand of fare paying passengers to transport them to the place of their destination. During the course of this duty, if the passengers had decided to commit an act of felony of stealing the auto rickshaw and in the course of achieving the said object of stealing the auto rickshaw, they had to eliminate the driver of the auto rickshaw then it cannot but be said that the death so caused to the driver of the auto rickshaw was an accidental murder. The stealing of the auto rickshaw was the object of the felony and the murder that was caused in the said process of stealing the auto rickshaw is only incidental to the act of stealing of the auto rickshaw. Therefore, it has to be said that on the facts and circumstances of this case the death of the deceased (Dasarath Singh) was caused accidentally in the process of committing the theft of the autoare unable to accept this contention advanced on behalf of the respondents.We do not see how the object of the two Acts, namely, the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmens Compensation Act are in any way different. In our opinion, the relevant object of both the Acts are to provide compensation to the victims of accidents. The only difference between the two enactments is that so far as the Workmens Compensation Act is concerned, it is confined to workmen as defined under that Act while the relief provided under Chapters X to XII of the Motor Vehicles Act is available to all the victims of accidents involving a motor vehicle. In this conclusion of ours we are supported by Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act as per which provision, it is open to the claimants either to proceed to claim compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act. A perusal of the objects of the two enactments clearly establishes that both the enactments are beneficial enactments operating in the same field, hence judicially accepted interpretation of the word `death in Workmens Compensation Act is, in our opinion applicable to the interpretation of the word death in the Motor Vehicles Act also.In the instant case, as we have noticed the facts, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the murder of the deceased (Dasarath Singh) was due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. Therefore, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled for compensation as claimed by them and the High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the death of Dasarath Singh was not caused by an accident involving the use of motor vehicle.17. This leaves us to consider the second point raised before us by the counsel for the appellant. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company purported to be under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable because prior permission of the Court as required was not obtained by the appellants. In support of this contention of the appellants, reliance is placed on a judgments of this court in the case Shankarayya and Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., 1998(3) SCC 140.We respectfully agree with the ration laid down in the above case and in view of the fact admittedly the Insurance Company had not obtained leave from the tribunal before filing the above appeal. We are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company before the High Court was not maintainable in law.