1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 11.04.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Kutch at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 477 of 2000 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,61,500/- as compensation with interest at 9% per annum.
3. The claimants filed the claim petition under the provisions of Section 163-A of the M.V. Act to get compensation on structured formula basis and claimed Rs. 5,49,500/- on account of accidental death of one Shri Mahendrabhai Makwana, who expired due to injuries sustained in a robbery attempt which occurred on 27.06.2000 when he was travelling in a truck bearing registration no. GJ- 12-V-5307 as a cleaner.
4. Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the entire facts of the case and evidence on record. He submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not appreciating that under Section 163A it is the use of the motor vehicle that is made liable. He submitted that the Tribunal has erred in considering the decision reported in AIR 2000 SC 1930.
5. Mr. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the claimants supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly held the insurance company liable for the payment of compensation because the deceased was travelling as a cleaner in the said bus insured with the appellant. He submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ritadevi Vs. United India Assurance Co. Ltd reported in AIR 2000 SC 1930 is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
6. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, this court is of the view that considering the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the death of Shri Mahendrabhai happened due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. It is established from the FIR and the P.M note that the dacoits while committing robbery had committed murder of Shri Mahendrabhai who was travelling in the truck in question.
7. In the case of Ritadevi (supra), the Apex Court in para 10 has held as under:
“10. The question, therefore, is can a murder be an accident 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 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 dominent intention of the Act of felony is to 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.”
7.1 Considering the aforesaid view, this court is of the opinion that as construed in the aforesaid judgement, death of the cleaner in a case of robbery is an accident within the meaning of M.V. Act and the claimants are entitled to receive compensation under the Act. This court is in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal and therefore do not see any reason for causing interference.
8. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//