Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 253 (TRI)

Commandant 7th Battalion v. Urmilla Debbarma

2015-05-06

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since the facts and question of law involved are virtually identical. In both the cases the claimants filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the claim petition are that on 20th August, 2002 the deceased in both the cases being Rifle men of 7th Battalion Tripura State Rifle (TSR) along with other Jawans of the TSR were travelling in a vehicle bearing No. TR-01-B-1003 from TSR camp, Amarendranagar to Bishramganj. They were on escort duty. When the escort vehicle reached Hirapur, a group of armed terrorist started firing indiscriminately on the escort vehicle. As a consequence of firing the driver lost control of the vehicle and it turn turtle by the side of the main road. The deceased in both the cases suffered bullet injuries and died at the spot. 3. The learned MACT had allowed the petitions and granted compensation and these appeals have been filed challenging the award in which the main ground raised by the appellant is that these cases do not fall within the purview of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as the deceased who were on escort duty died during their duty protecting the vehicle and not as a result of a motor vehicle accident. 4. The whole issue is whether this incident can said to be an accident falling within the purview of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or not. 5. In this behalf reference may be made to a judgment in Smt. Basu Mati Debbarma Vrs. 4. The whole issue is whether this incident can said to be an accident falling within the purview of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or not. 5. In this behalf reference may be made to a judgment in Smt. Basu Mati Debbarma Vrs. Smt. Anita Debbarma: (2013) 2 TLR 566 whereby a learned Single Judge of the then Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court dealt with a similar issue: “ **** ****** ****** ******* ******* [41] In this batch of the appeals, two pertinent questions that surfaced can be formulated as under: (1) Whether deaths of the security personnel who were engaged on escort duty for protecting the movement of the vehicle and the passengers through the extremist infested areas if killed in the encounter or in the unilateral discriminate firing by the extremist would come within the ambit ‘from the use of the motor vehicle’ for purpose of jurisdiction of the tribunal for determination of compensation under Section 163A or 166 of the motor vehicle act and, ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ****** ” Dealing with the above question after referring to various judgments the learned Single Judge held: “The House of Lords maintained the Chief Adjudication Officer’s finding as regards ‘the accident’ that the Chief Adjudication Officer was entitled to hold that, that was not accident not only because that was foreseeable but there was no room for contemplating the possibility of such event, in as much as the employees on work deputed for doing the hazardous work, where risk and peril visit oftentimes. The same principle may be applied in these appeals as well. The security persons who were deputed for escort duty for providing security of the movement of the vehicles and passengers in the extremist infested areas could foresee that their such deployment may invite the peril. This being the part of their engagement that cannot be termed as an accident not merely for that the peril is foreseeable and considering such peril and risk to their life they were given engagement of protecting life of the ordinary civilian, but such suddenness in the turn of events cannot be brought with the construct of accident arising from the use of the motor vehicle. But the State should set-up scheme for adequate compensation and rehabilitation of their dependents. But the State should set-up scheme for adequate compensation and rehabilitation of their dependents. This Court, therefore, is constraint to hold that the appeals filed by the dependants/legal heirs of the deceased security personnel who died in the extremist violence must fail. *** ***** ******” This judgment is being followed by this Court in all the cases. Sitting singly I am also bound by the said judgment. [6] On behalf of the respondent it is pointed out by the learned counsel Ms. P. Deb Paul that the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge is under challenge before the Apex Court. However, there is no stay of the judgment. [7] In view of the above discussion, the appeals are allowed. The awards of the learned Tribunal passed in both the petitions are set aside. No order as to costs. Send down the lower Court records forthwith.