JUDGMENT : MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, J. 1. The instant appeal is filed by the appellants-Insurance company to question and seek setting aside of the award dated 26.02.2018, for short impugned award, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, hereinafter, Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 13 and 199 titled Mehraj-ud-din Bhat and Others vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,55,000/- (Five Lacs and Fifty Five Thousand Only) along with interest @ 6.5 % per anum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till its final realization, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. BRIEF FACTS 2. The case of the appellants is that Ikhlas Ahmad Bhat, S/o Abdul Ahad R/o Amargarh Sopore, while working as Conductor of vehicle bearing Registration No. JK05A-5515 died due to an electric shock when the driver lifted the jack of the offending vehicle, for unloading some material, and came in contact with a high tension electricity supply line at Ashper Batapora on 25.04.2012. An FIR No. 111/2012 came to registered in this connection with Police Station Sopore under section 279 & 304-A of the RPC. 3. Respondents 1 to 4 being the mother and brothers of the deceased conductor filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking adequate compensation from the appellants for the loss caused to them due to the death of the deceased conductor. 4. In order to appreciate the claim put-forth by the respondents 1 to 4, the Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed certain issues for determination. 5. Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case; the evidence on record and upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,55000/- (Five lacs and Fifty Five Thousand Only) along with interest @ 6.5% per annum in favour of the respondents from the date of institution of the claim petition till its final realization. 6. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned award, the appellants filed the instant appeal inter-alia on the ground that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the incident in question was not an outcome of a vehicular accident but an electrocution, therefore, the appellants should not have been saddled with the liability to pay such compensation. 7. 6. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned award, the appellants filed the instant appeal inter-alia on the ground that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the incident in question was not an outcome of a vehicular accident but an electrocution, therefore, the appellants should not have been saddled with the liability to pay such compensation. 7. This Court, upon consideration of the matter, in terms of order dated 10.07.2018 stayed the operation of the impugned award subject to deposition of entire awarded amount before the Registry of this Court. An amount of Rs. 6,51,199/- as per report of the registry, has been deposited by the appellants on 2nd August, 2018 in compliance to the order dated 10.07.2018. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions made. 9. The Tribunal, during the pendency of the claim petition, had formed certain issues for determination. Issue no. 1, being relevant, is taken note of herein-below: “1. Whether an accident occurred on 25.04.2012 at Ashpeer Sopore, Kashmir by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. JK05A/5515 (tipper) by its driver respondent No. 2, as a result of which Ikhlas Ahmad has died? (OPP)” 10. The admitted position of the case is that the deceased died on 25.04.2012 when he was performing the duties of a conductor with offending bus bearing registration No. JK05A-5515. It is further admitted that it was during the unloading of the material loaded in the offending vehicle that the vehicle came in contact with a high tension electric wire resulting in the death of the deceased. The offending vehicle being under a valid insurance contract at the relevant point of time is also not disputed. 11. It has come on record during trial that the incident in question occurred because of the negligence of the bus driver. The Tribunal, in the impugned award, has specifically recorded that the appellants/respondent insurance company therein, has failed to examine even a single witness in support of its contention till its evidence was closed on 24.10.2017. In the said background, the Tribunal held that the incident in question has actually occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and held appellants liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 to 4 to the tune of Rs. 5,55,000/- along with interest @ 6.5% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition. 12. 5,55,000/- along with interest @ 6.5% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition. 12. The contention of the appellants is that the deceased died due to an act of God, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation is noted to be rejected only as the Supreme Court in case titled Rita Devi and Others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another, (2000) 5 SCC 113 has held as follows: “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.” 13. In another case titled Kalim Khan vs. Fimindabee and Others, 2018 (8) Scale 484 has adjudicated upon the question as to whether the Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is legally empowered to adjudicate a claim for compensation on account of injury sustained by a bystander in a blast operation carried out for digging well with the assistance of a tractor. The Supreme Court observed that there should be a casual relationship existing between the violation and the accident caused in view of the expression ‘accident arising out of use of a motor vehicle’. The Supreme Court observed that there should be a casual relationship existing between the violation and the accident caused in view of the expression ‘accident arising out of use of a motor vehicle’. The Supreme Court ultimately held that while the deceased was running towards his house after purchasing certain articles from a grocery shop, he sustained serious injuries on account of a heavy stone which came flying and fell on his head, and therefore, the legal heirs were justified in initiating a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as the blast operation was carried out with the help of a tractor, which was used for digging up well by keeping a blasting machine. 14. In the instant case also the accident in question has occurred because of the use of a motor vehicle, therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases supra, the contention that the appellants being insurers are not liable to pay the compensation is rejected being without merit. 15. Given the fact that a 22 years old boy has lost his life to the accident in question, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be too meager to be questioned and delayed for so long. However, since there is no challenge to the impugned award to that effect, therefore, the impugned award does not require any interference. 16. For all what has been said hereinbefore, the instant appeal being without any merit is dismissed and in consequence whereof the impugned award dated 26.02.2018 is maintained. The amount of compensation shall be released in favour of the respondents 1 to 4 strictly in terms of the impugned award. 17. Record be returned to the Tribunal.