JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—The fact remains that when the deceased was carrying buffalo by the concerned truck being TATA 407 UP. 13B 6388 he was murdered by a co-passenger and dead body was thrown from the vehicle. The deceased was aged about 32 years and carrying cattle business. 2. An important question arose before the tribunal that when the deceased was murdered on the vehicle, whether such incident can be said to be motor accident for the purpose of getting compensation from the insurance company or not. 3. We have extensively gone through the judgment and order passed by the tribunal. The tribunal discussed this issue under issue No. 1 therein and held that the vehicle was used at the time of murder and under issue No. 3 ultimately came to a conclusion that since after such incident, the driver did not inform the local Police Station, therefore, it can be presumed that the driver had knowledge about the causing of murder from before. Even thereafter the insurance company was directed to pay the amount to the ultimate sufferer and recover from the owner. 4. In Rita Devi (Smt.) and others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another; 2000 (5) SCC 113 , it has been held that there is no doubt that the murder is a felonious act. 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 simpliciter, while if the cause 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. 5. Between the period when judgment was reserved and made for delivery we have come across with similar issue in First Appeal From Order No. 2028 of 2008 (National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Shimla and others) and delivered a judgment on 11th July, 2008 upon making a difference between felonious and not felonious act in coming to conclusion about motor accident which has binding effect herein. 6. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , Supreme Court held that an accident is not susceptible to a very precise definition. An accident may take place for a variety of reasons. The driver of a vehicle may not have a hand in it. 6. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , Supreme Court held that an accident is not susceptible to a very precise definition. An accident may take place for a variety of reasons. The driver of a vehicle may not have a hand in it. He may not be found to be negligent in given case. Other factors such as unforeseen situation, negligence of the victim, bad road or the action or inaction of any other person may lead to an accident. There may be a case where an accident takes place without their being fault on the part of the driver. 7. The tribunal has misdirected itself by considering mens rea of the driver in this jurisdiction. Unless an order is passed by the appropriate Court of criminal law it is very difficult to construe that because the driver ran away from the place after seeing the murder, he was involved in the same or he had done so out of fear. Under such circumstances, presumption of the tribunal appears to be feeble in nature. 8. In a case of motor accident primary liability lies with the driver when vicarious liability lies with the owner and the insurance company is the indemnifier. The tribunal will only see whether any premeditated cause was available apparently on the part of the person concerned liable on account of motor accident in the use of the motor vehicle. It is not the duty of the tribunal under motor accident claims to draw an adverse inference on the basis of the factum that when upon seeing a murder on the vehicle in use of it when a driver ran away instead of going to Police Station it should be held to be premeditated. Had it been so, there was no occasion for the tribunal to direct the insurance company to pay the compensation to the ultimate sufferer and recover it from the owner because it was not an accident at all in the eye of law. But when tribunal passed such order for payment and recover it appears to us tribunal was completely in dilemma. Accordingly, although we criticise the observation of the tribunal in concluding the inference but go by the ultimate order passed by it. But when tribunal passed such order for payment and recover it appears to us tribunal was completely in dilemma. Accordingly, although we criticise the observation of the tribunal in concluding the inference but go by the ultimate order passed by it. The factual analysis, as made by this Court, will have a superseding effect of the factual analysis made by the tribunal. 9. Therefore, in all, instead of dismissing the appeal at the stage of admission we treat it disposed of without imposing any cost. 10. Incidentally, the appellant-insurance company prayed that the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made before this Court for preferring this appeal be remitted back to the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as expeditiously as possible in order to adjust the same with the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants, however, such prayer is allowed. Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—I agree. ————