JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, CJ. 1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of the same accident and virtually identical awards. 2. The case of the claimants, briefly, stated as that Parimal Sutradhar was engaged as driver of vehicle No. TR-01-4259. Kartik Saha was the assistant in the said vehicle. The case of the claimants is that both Parimal Sutradhar and Kartik Saha were asked by the owner of the vehicle Sri Bhagaban Debbarma to come to the house to receive the same. They accordingly went to the house of the owner at Padmanagar by driving the said vehicle. Thereafter, when they were returning to Bisramganj by the said vehicle, these two persons were abducted along with the vehicle. Thereafter, these two persons were never heard of and it is presumed that they were murdered. The short question is whether this occurrence is an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle or not. 3. In Rita Devi (Smt.) And Others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Another : (2000) 5 SCC 113 , the deceased was the driver of an auto rickshaw owned by some other person. On 22.03.1995, some unknown persons hired the auto rickshaw. They subsequently, stole the auto rickshaw and killed the driver. The Apex Court held that this is an accident within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act. The question whether a murder can be an accident or not was discussed by the Apex Court in the following terms:- "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. 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." 4. Therefore, the difference between a murder which is not an accident and a murder which is an accident depends on the cause of the murder. If the dominant intention of the person was to kill the particular person then such killing is not an accident. However, if the dominant purpose was not to kill the person but to do the some other act then that murder is an accident. In the present case, it is not alleged that the miscreants had any enmity with the deceased. They actually abducted both the deceased and the vehicle only with a view to take steal the vehicle. Therefore, the act of murder was done with the intention of stealing the vehicle and as such, it is an accident. 5. Therefore, I find no merit in these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed.