ORDER Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. The appellant, Insurance Company calls in question the legality of the award dated 31-7-09 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Rewa in MVC Case No. 42/09, whereby, in lieu of death of Surendra Kumar, awarded the compensation of Rs. 3,49,000/-. 2. Sole ground on which the appellant questions the award is that the death of Surendra Kumar was not arising out of motor accident but was murdered. 3. Facts giving rise to the claim for compensation and passing of award thereof, briefly are that, on 28-10-05 at Village Baillwa Paikkon on NH-7 opposite shop of Birjwasi Singh at 7:30 p.m., on the road, Surendra Kumar (the deceased) was engaged in chit-chatting with one Dhirendra Singh when one Rajrakhan Singh came from his house and started talking with Surendra Kumar during course whereof he, i.e., Rajrakhan Singh pushed Surendra Kumar towards the Highway and at that very moment he was run over by truck bearing Registration No. UP-70U-9346, driven by respondent No. 5, owned by respondent No. 4. Consequent whereof, Surendra Kumar died on spot. 4. Alleging that, the death of Surendra Kumar was due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 5, the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation of Rs. 8,61,000/-. 5. The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company on the ground that the motor accident was not the proximate cause of death but he was murdered. To bring home the contention the Insurance Company relied upon the FIR (Exh. P-2), whereof Rajrakhan Singh was framed as an accused for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. It was urged that the deceased being murdered, the Insurance Company was not under an obligation to indemnify the owner/insured of offending truck. 6. To bring home the contention the Insurance Company relied upon the FIR (Exh. P-2), whereof Rajrakhan Singh was framed as an accused for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. It was urged that the deceased being murdered, the Insurance Company was not under an obligation to indemnify the owner/insured of offending truck. 6. Claims Tribunal framed two issues to resolve the controversy as to whether the death of Surendra Kumar was due to murder or road accident: Issue No. 1 :D;k ?kVuk fnukad 28&1&05 dks 7-30 cts lk;adky xzke csyok iSdku] Fkkuk jk;iqj dpqZ-] ftyk jhok] e-iz- esa tc e`rd lqjsUnz dqekj fejk jksMds fdukjs [kM+k gksdj /khjsUnz flag ls ckr dj jgk Fkk] rc jktjk[ku flag us mls lM+dh dh rjQ mNky fn;k A mlh le; vukosnd - 1 ds LokfeRo dk Vd - ;w-ih- 70;w@9346 dks mldk pkyd vukosnd - 2 rst jrkj o ykijokghiwoZd pkyd e`rd dks Bksdj ekj fn;k ftlls e`rd dh e`R;q gks x;h\ Issue No. 2 :D;k e`rd ds dkj.k Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 302 ds rgr gR;k dk izdj.k dk;e gksus ls chek daiuh vukosnd - 3 {kfriwfrZ ds fy, vuqRrjnk;h gS\ The Tribunal in Paragraphs 5 to 10 of the award, after taking into consideration the evidence on record, came to hold that the death of Surendra Kumar arose out of use of motor vehicle and the overt act of the felony monger was not the proximate cause. 7. It is this finding which is being questioned in present appeal on the count that the Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the death was arising out of use of motor vehicle. It is urged that the death was due to fellaneous act of Rajrakhan. 8. To appreciate the issue, worth it would be to have a look to the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, which stipulates: Section 163-A. Special provision as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation :- For the purposes of this sub-section "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and existence as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by Notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule. 9. Aforesaid provisions came up for consideration in the case of Smt. Rita Devi and Ors. v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Anr. AIR 2000 SC 1930 , wherein it has been observed by Their Lordships: 7. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the Motor Vehicles Act does not define the word 'accident'. However, Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for payment of compensation for the death or injury suffered in a motor vehicle accident on a structured formula basis in Section 163-A of the Act. Sub-section (1) of the said Section says that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. 8. Sub-section (2) of the said Section also provides, in any claim for compensation under that sub-section, the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (Emphasis supplied) 9. (Emphasis supplied) 9. A conjoint reading of the above two sub-sections of Section 163-A shows that a victim or his heirs are entitled to claim from the owner/Insurance Company a compensation for death or permanent disablement suffered due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle (Emphasis supplied) without having to prove wrongful act or neglect or default of any one. Thus, it is clear, if it is established by the claimants that the death or disablement was caused due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle then they will be entitled for payment of compensation. 10. What would the expression "arising out of the use of motor vehicle" then mean ? The interpretation whereof would lead to a conclusion regarding causal nexus of the death and the proximate cause thereof. These expressions came up for consideration in Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Anr. v. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More AIR 1991 SC 1769 , wherein Their Lordship's were pleased to observe: 35. 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 Sections 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. 11. Cause of death of Surendra Kumar was due to murder or by the accident would be clear from the post-mortem report (Exh. P-7), but before that worth it would be to know that difference between a murder which is not an accident and the murder which is an accident as was noted in Rita Devi (supra), wherein, Their Lordships were please to observe: 10. P-7), but before that worth it would be to know that difference between a murder which is not an accident and the murder which is an accident as was noted in Rita Devi (supra), wherein, Their Lordships were please to observe: 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 dominant 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. 12. In the case at hand the post-mortem report exposits following injuries: (1) There is lacerated wound 5 cms x 1 cm x width not measured (clotted blood present), it is on the left side of forehead & parietal region of scalp. (2) There is ante-mortem bruise 4 cms x 2 cms - left upper eye lid, blue colour. (3) There is 10 cms x 6 cms, bluish bruise alongwith curve upper portion, lower abdomen. (4) There is abrasion (ante-mortem) 6 cms x 4 cms on right side of loin region and front. (5) Ante-mortem abrasion bluish 6" x 4" on right side of thigh and front side. (6) There is bruise 10 cms x 6 cms, bruise over upper and middle portion of thigh. (7) There is abrasion 3 cms x 2 cms x medial side of knee joint and left side. (8) There is bruise 3 cms x 2 cms, bluish colour, upper gluteal region and right side. 13. All injuries except 3 and 8 were ante-mortem. (7) There is abrasion 3 cms x 2 cms x medial side of knee joint and left side. (8) There is bruise 3 cms x 2 cms, bluish colour, upper gluteal region and right side. 13. All injuries except 3 and 8 were ante-mortem. The cause of death as opined by the doctor who performed autopsy was due to comma after congestion of left side of brain & Haemorrhagic shock & Neurogenic shock after fracture of left side of femur and left mandible bone. 14. The facts thus adverted to, and the Authorities noted on the issues, leaves no iota of doubt that of murder of the deceased was due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. The conclusion arrived at by the Claims Tribunal cannot be found fault with. 15. In the result, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, no costs.