Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Kalpana Das & Ors.

The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against a judgment and order dated 10.04.2013 passed by the learned MACT, Cachar in MAC Case No. 804/2007. By the impugned judgment, an amount of Rs.3,36,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand) along with interest has been awarded. The appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company.

I have heard Shri S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddhant Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri M. Talukdar, learned counsel for the opposite party – claimants and Ms D. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

Shri Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in the instant case, it would be revealed that the deceased who was claimed to be the handyman was murdered and therefore, such death cannot be connected with the use of a motor vehicle. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act which defines Claims Tribunal. He has submitted that jurisdiction is vested upon such Claims Tribunal to adjudicate claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injuries to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles. He has submitted that the present death was not connected to the use of a motor vehicle though such death was caused inside a motor vehicle. He has specifically submitted that the death would come within the expression murder simpliciter and not accidental murder.

The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the learned Tribunal had taken into consideration the case of Rita Devi & Ors. vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.& Ors. reported in(2000) 5 SCC 113, the facts of the present case are distinguishable. He has also placed reliance upon a case decided by a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2005 (3) GLT 465 (National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Kasheni) wherein an appeal by the Insurance Company against grant of award was allowed and held that since the death was not a result of an accident but an act of homicide, a claim under the MVA Act would not be maintainable. Reliance has also been placed on a recent judgment reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 1374 (Dilip Agarwal vs. Rajshri Agarwal and Ors.). He has submitted that in the said case, it has been laid down that a nexus has to be established between the accidental death and the use of a motor vehicle which is not present in the instant case.

Per contra, Shri Talukdar, the learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal would squarely be covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rita Devi (supra). He has submitted that the dominant cause of the murder was to steal the vehicle which would make the death an accidental one connected with use of the motor vehicle. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rita Devi (supra) wherein the aspect of accidental murder and murder simpliciter has been explained. It has been held that when it appears from the facts that it is an accidental murder, a claim would be maintainable. He has accordingly prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Ms. Pathak, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has submitted that she would not have a significant role in the adjudication of the present appeal.

The facts of the case which has been elaborately narrated in the impugned award are not in dispute. Though there is some dispute with regard to the employment of the deceased as to whether he was a spare driver cum handyman, it is not in dispute that he was found dead along with the driver at a place and the vehicle was found missing. The records also reveal that though a police case was registered, the same had culminated in a Final Report. From the facts and circumstances, it clearly appears that the intention to cause death was to achieve the objective to steal the vehicle. In this connection, the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rita Devi (supra) are to be taken into consideration which read as follows:

It clearly appears that the dominant intention in the instant case was not to kill the deceased but to steal the vehicle and for achieving the said objective, the killing had to be done. In the opinion of this Court, the present death will come within the ambit of accidental murder as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Rita Devi (supra). The facts of the cases relied upon by the appellant would be distinguishable from the facts of the present case which is almost identical to the facts in the case of Rita Devi (supra). It may be mentioned that like that of the present case, in the case of Rita Devi (supra) the driver of an auto-rikshaw was found dead and the auto-rikshaw was stolen which was never recovered.

This Court has also noted that the amount which has been awarded is not on the higher side but appears to be reasonable. Under the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment dated 10.04.2013 would not require any interference and accordingly the appeal stands dismissed.

Let the records be sent back immediately.

At this stage, Shri Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that 50 % of the Award was already paid. The balance amount including the interest as per the Award be paid expeditiously and in any case within a period of 45 days from today.

The statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company be refunded by the Registry within a period of 45 days from today.