JUDGMENT : Rekha Mittal, J. By way of this order, 1 shall dispose of FAO No. 5760 of 2002 titled "Manjit Kaur and another v. M/s. Mahak Cosmetics and Credit Private Limited and others", and FAO No. 408 of 2003 titled 'The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Manjit Kaur and others", as these have emerged out of award dated 9.9.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (in short "the Tribunal") whereby the application filed by the claimants under Sections 163-A and 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act") for grant of compensation to them and proforma respondent No. 3 namely Satnam Kaur (in FAO-5760 of 2002) in regard to death of Surjit Singh has been allowed and compensation to the extent of Rs. 4,41,500/- has been awarded. The facts relevant for disposal of the present appeals are that as per averments set up in the application by the claimants, on the intervening night of 23/24.11.1999, Surjit Singh was driving truck No. GJ-15-U-5846. He was accompanied by his brother Sahab Singh. They stopped near Rajasthan petrol pump on Delhi Jaipur Highway for taking a cup of tea. Three persons started quarrelling with Surjit Singh and gave severe beating to him with iron rods. Surjit Singh was shifted to Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the occurrence. Three assailants were booked under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") in the case registered vide FIR No. 684 dated 24.11.1999 in Police Station, Vasant Kunj, Delhi. 2. The primary dispute around which controversy in the present appeals revolves is whether Surjit Singh sustained injury out of use of motor vehicle to maintain an application under Section 163A of the Act. 3. The parties shall be referred to as the claimants and the insurance company for the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion. 4. Counsel for the insurance company has strenuously argued that as murder of Surjit Singh is not accidental, therefore, the application for grant of compensation under the Act is not maintainable. 3. The parties shall be referred to as the claimants and the insurance company for the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion. 4. Counsel for the insurance company has strenuously argued that as murder of Surjit Singh is not accidental, therefore, the application for grant of compensation under the Act is not maintainable. It is further argued that even if murder of the deceased was committed inside the truck on which he was working as a driver at the relevant time, the same does not bring the case within purview of the expression 'out of the use of motor vehicle' mentioned in Section 163A of the Act. In support of his contention, he has referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Rita Devi & Others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2000) 5 SCC 113 . It is further argued that even if murder of Surjit Singh has occurred during course of employment and the employer is liable to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the claimants cannot maintain their plea under the provisions of Section 163A of the Act. 5. Counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, has contended that the expression 'arising out of use of motor vehicle' indicates that for the purpose of awarding compensation under Section 163-A of the Act, the casual 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 meaning thereby that accident should be connected with the use of motor vehicle but the said connection need not be direct and immediate. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ghanshyam Vs. Manager, MPSRTC Depot and Another, (2010) 2 MPLJ 678 . He has further cited the judgment of this court in Hassan Mohd. Alias Chote Lal Vs. Smt. Rahisan and Others, (2014) ACJ 683. 6. Another submission made by counsel for the claimants is that compensation awarded in favour of the claimants is liable to be enhanced. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. He has further cited the judgment of this court in Hassan Mohd. Alias Chote Lal Vs. Smt. Rahisan and Others, (2014) ACJ 683. 6. Another submission made by counsel for the claimants is that compensation awarded in favour of the claimants is liable to be enhanced. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. Indisputably, Surjit Singh (deceased), driver on truck No. GJ-15-U-5846 was attacked by three assailants and they caused injuries to him with iron rods which proved fatal to the victim, who was shifted to Safdarjang hospital, Delhi. The occurrence led to registration of FIR 684 dated 24.11.1999 in Police Station, Vasant Kunj for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. There is no denial that on completion of investigation of the aforesaid FIR, challan was presented in the court for trial of perpetrators of the crime for committing murder of Surjit Singh. There is no clear evidence available on record if Surjit Singh sustained injuries at the hands of the assailants inside the truck or otherwise. Be that as it may, assuming that Surjit Singh was inside the truck when the assailants inflicted injuries by using iron rods, the question for adjudication is whether such an occurrence can be said to be an accident arising out of use of motor vehicle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rita Devi's case (supra) has held in para 09, quoted herein below:- "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. 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 simpliciter, 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." 9. The Hon'ble Court answered the question, can a murder be an accident by holding that difference between a murder which is not an accident and a murder which is an accident, depends upon the proximity of the cause of such murder. 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 simpliciter. If the cause of murder or act of murder originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder. 10. In Smt. Rita Devi's case (supra), the deceased was driver of the auto rickshaw and accepted the demand of passengers to transport them to the place of their destination. During the course of this duty, 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 have to eliminate driver of the auto rickshaw then it cannot but be said that 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 process of committing theft of auto rickshaw is only accidental. In Hassan Mohd. Alias Chote Lal's case (supra) decided by this court the claimants averred that on the fateful day Hassan Mohd. Alias Chote Lal-respondent No. 1 loaded dry fodder (wheat husk) in the tractor-trolley bearing No. HRU-4389 and started from his village for Sidhana (Rajasthan). Sallu was sitting near Hassan Mohd. at the mudguard of the tractor. In Hassan Mohd. Alias Chote Lal's case (supra) decided by this court the claimants averred that on the fateful day Hassan Mohd. Alias Chote Lal-respondent No. 1 loaded dry fodder (wheat husk) in the tractor-trolley bearing No. HRU-4389 and started from his village for Sidhana (Rajasthan). Sallu was sitting near Hassan Mohd. at the mudguard of the tractor. At about 1.30 a.m. when they were 8 Kms ahead of Rewari at Narnaul road near bus stand, Dhamlawas, a truck came from their back side and hit the trolley, as a result of which Sallu fell down on the road and was crushed under the tractor and died at the spot. In those circumstances, this Court affirmed the findings of the Tribunal that deceased died in the accident arising out of use of motor vehicle. 11. In the case before the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in New India Assurance Company limited v. Budhsen Mishra and others' case (supra), Surendra Kumar was engaged in talking with one Dhirendra Singh when one Rajrakhan Singh came from his house and started talking with Surendra Kumar during course whereof he (Rajrakhan Singh) pushed Surnedra Kumar towards the Highway and at that very moment, he was run over by truck bearing No. UP-70U-9346 driven by respondent No. 5. As a consequence, Surendra Kumar died on the spot. The Court while referring to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Rita Devi's case (supra) and another judgment in Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another Vs. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More, (1991) 3 SCC 530 wherein their Lordships have dealt with the expression "arising out of use of motor vehicle' upheld the findings of the Tribunal that death of Surendra Kumar arose out of use of motor vehicle. 12. Keeping in view the ratio of the decision in Smt. Rita Devi's case (supra) decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, referred to in the judgments rendered by different High Courts, when the facts and circumstances of the present case are examined in the light of what has been held in the aforesaid judgments, I find it difficult to accept contention of the claimants that killing of Surjit Singh was an act of accidental murder and not murder simpliciter, to attract provisions of Section 163-A of the Act. The learned Tribunal grossly erred in accepting the prayer of the claimants that Surjit Singh died out of use of a motor vehicle giving cause of action to the applicants to claim compensation by invoking the provisions of Section 163A of the Act. However it appears that as Surjit Singh died during the course of his employment, the applicants may take recourse to appropriate proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act to claim compensation in regard to death of Surjit Singh. 13. So far as the plea of the claimants with regard to enhancement of compensation, the same is not tenable in view of the discussion made herein before. This apart, there is no error committed by the Tribunal in regard to computation of compensation keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case when examined in the light of structured formula laid down in Second Schedule appended to Section 163A of the Act. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appeal filed by the claimants (Manjit Kaur and others) is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed and as a consequence thereof, the award dated 9.9.2002 passed by the Tribunal is ordered to be set aside and the application for grant of compensation is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.