Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 547 (PNJ)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Maya Devi

2014-03-14

KULDIP SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT : Kuldip Singh, J. This appeal has been filed by Insurance Company against the award dated 1.4.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Patiala (in short 'the Tribunal'), u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act'). The facts claimed by the claimants before the Tribunal are reproduced verbatim as under:- "The deceased Chotta Lal alias Chotta Ram son of Sh. Shankar Sharma alongwith the Jatinder and one of his friend had brought the iron from Durgapur to Gobindgarh in truck No. HR-37-A-2034 and after unloading the iron at Gobindgarh, the deceased Chhota Lal was bringing the truck from Gobindgarh to Patiala and he was also having with him Rs. 42,500/- which he has received for the freight charges. That when the truck reached near Petrol Pump National Highway service station near Madhopur Chowk in the area of Police Station Sirhind on the intervening night of 19.3.2003 and 20.3.2003, Chotta Lal alias Chotta Ram had to stay near Madhopur Chowk in the truck because there was shortage of diesel in the truck and the petrol pump was closed so he informed the respondent No. 1 that he will bring the truck No. HR-37-A-2034 from Sirhind to Patiala in the morning. The conductor Jatinder and one of his friend on seeing sum of Rs. 42,500/- with Chotta Lal became greedy and tried to snatch this amount from Chotta Lal to misappropriate the same and when Chotta Lal resisted, they caused the murder of Chotta Lal Though the act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of snatching the amount from Chotta Lal and as such committed such felonious act that caused murder and as such this murder is an accidental murder. That Chotta Lal alias Chotta Ram has died due to accidental murder arising out of the use of motor vehicle. The death has not been caused due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle as such the claimants are entitled to payment of compensation on structured formula basis." It was stated that deceased Chotta Lal @ Chhota Ram was 29 years of age. His monthly income was Rs. 3,000/- per month. It was prayed that respondent No. 1 (owner) and Insurance Company (respondent No. 2) are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amounting to Rs. 8 lacs. 2. His monthly income was Rs. 3,000/- per month. It was prayed that respondent No. 1 (owner) and Insurance Company (respondent No. 2) are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amounting to Rs. 8 lacs. 2. In the written statement, Insurance Company took the plea that the present claim petition is not maintainable as under the Motor Vehicle Act, only the third party claims are maintainable and not the claim for murder of an employee. The policy covers the accident and not willful act of murder. Therefore, Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of claim petition. 3. Respondent No. 1 in the written statement admitted the claim of the claimants. 4. From the pleadings, the Tribunal framed following issues:- 1. Whether Chhote Lal died due to the use of truck No. HR 37A 2034 on the intervening night of 19.3.2003 and 20.3.2003? OPP 2. Whether the claimants are legal heirs of deceased Chhote Lal? OPA 3. Whether driver of truck No. HR 37A 2034 was not holding a valid driving licence? OPR 2 4. Whether claim petition is collusive? OPR 5. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? OPR 6. What the amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled and from whom? OPA 7. Relief. 5. The Tribunal took up issues No. 1 and 5 together for discussion and noted down the sequel of events as under:- (i) Chotte Lal deceased was driver of the truck No. HR 37A 2034. (ii) On 19.3.2003, he reached Gobindgarh alongwith a consignment of iron from Durgapur. On reaching Gobindgarh on 6.30 p.m. he unloaded the iron received Rs. 42,500/- towards freight charges and started for Patiala. (iii) At 9.30 p.m. he made a telephone call to Harchand Singh respondent No. 1, the owner of the truck that there was shortage of diesel and petrol pump was lying closed, as such he has parked his truck at National Highways service station Petrol Pump, Madhopur Chowk. He also told respondent No. 1 that a sum of Rs. 42,500/- is with him, which he has received as freight charges. Conductor Jatinder Kumar and one of his friends were also with him and they will return to Patiala on the next morning. He also told respondent No. 1 that a sum of Rs. 42,500/- is with him, which he has received as freight charges. Conductor Jatinder Kumar and one of his friends were also with him and they will return to Patiala on the next morning. (iv) As per Harchand Singh PW2 he received a telephonic message on 20.3.2003 made by Jatinder Kumar on his mobile and he told him that he had been kidnapped and taken to Motia Khan Delhi by some unknown persons. He was not aware about the fact of Chhote Lal and the truck. (v) As per respondent No. 1 he made a return call to the number from where telephone call was received, as he had suspicion about the telephone call of Jatinder Kumar. It was found that the number from where Jatinder Kumar had made the telephone call, was of a PCO near Bus Stand Yamunanagar. (vi) Thereafter respondent No. 1 with his friend, Balwinder Singh reached National Highway Service Station, where the truck was lying parked and the dead body of Chhote Lal was lying inside the truck. It has been stated by PW2 Harchand Singh that Chhote Lal had been killed by Jatinder Kumar and his friend due to greed of money, which was with the driver. After murder, they also took away that money. The murder was reported to the police vide FIR, copy of which is Ex. A6 giving the whole sequence of events. 6. The Tribunal made distinction between the murder, which is not an accident and murder, which is an accident. The Tribunal also found that the dead body of Chhote Lal was found inside the truck. The deceased was bringing freight charges of Rs. 42,500/- and was returning back to Patiala. He had stopped on the way because of shortage of diesel. The freight with Chhote Lal received out of the user of vehicle became the cause of his death. Therefore, it was held that respondents are liable to pay the compensation u/s 163-A of the Act. 42,500/- and was returning back to Patiala. He had stopped on the way because of shortage of diesel. The freight with Chhote Lal received out of the user of vehicle became the cause of his death. Therefore, it was held that respondents are liable to pay the compensation u/s 163-A of the Act. Section 163-A of the Act provides as under:- "163-A. Special provisions 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 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. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 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." 7. In this way, it is made clear that the death should be 'out of the use of motor vehicle' to enable the claimant to seek the benefit of provisions of Section 163A of the Act. In this case, before the Tribunal, the copy of complaint (Ex. R1) and copy of FIR were proved. The case was registered on the statement of Harchand Singh-respondent No. 1. The facts and circumstances, as claimed by the claimants, show that when Chhote Lal was coming back, he was running short of diesel. Incidentally, he was carrying freight of Rs. 42,500/-. The murder was committed by the conductor of the truck out of greed to snatch Rs. 42,500/-. Therefore, prima-facie, the murder was committed to commit robbery of Rs. 42,500/-. The facts and circumstances, as claimed by the claimants, show that when Chhote Lal was coming back, he was running short of diesel. Incidentally, he was carrying freight of Rs. 42,500/-. The murder was committed by the conductor of the truck out of greed to snatch Rs. 42,500/-. Therefore, prima-facie, the murder was committed to commit robbery of Rs. 42,500/-. The mere fact that said amount was with the deceased on account of freight charges does not mean that the murder was committed in the process of user of vehicle. At that time, the truck was parked. Apparently, something happened between the driver and the conductor of the truck and the conductor committed the murder of the driver and took away all the money. It is out and out intentional murder and cannot be called accidental murder. Moreover, the Tribunal cannot go into the merits of the case of the murder as it is likely to effect the criminal trial pending before the competent court. In this case, the truck was stationary. The driver was in the truck. A dispute between the driver and conductor resulted in the murder of driver. It has nothing to do with the user of the vehicle. Therefore, in my view, the Tribunal erred in holding that the murder was accidental and that the said facts, as claimed by the claimants, fall within the beneficial provisions of Section 163-A of the Act to claim the compensation. It being so, it is held that the murder had nothing to do with the user of the vehicle. As such, claimants are not entitled to any compensation from the Insurance Company u/s 163-A of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned award is set aside and the claim petition u/s 163-A stands dismissed. The appeal is allowed.