SMT. RITA DEVI AND ORS. versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 741 · Decided: 27-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. RITA DEVI AND ORS. 
v. 
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR. 
APRIL 27, 2000 
[D.P. WADHWAAND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.J 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 : 
S. 163-A-Accident-CompensaJion-Payment of-Autorickshaw driver-
killed by unknown passengers for stealing the vehicle-Legal representaJives-
Claim for compensation-Maintainability of-Held, death of the deceased 
driver was an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle-Thus, entitled 
to claim compensation. 
A 
B 
c 
'Death'-Meaning of-Held, interpretation of word 'death' in Work-
men's Compensation Act, applicable to Motor Vehicles Act also-Workmen's 
D 
Compensation Act, 1923-lnterpretation of statutes. 
S. 170-Appeal-Maintainahility of-Accident-Claim for compensa-
tion-Allowed by Tribunal-.,.Appeal filed by insurer without obtaining leave 
from the Tribunal-Held, not maintainable. 
Won.is- & Phrases : 
'Death'-Meaning of in the context of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and 
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 
Driver of an auto-rickshaw was murdered by some unknown passen-
gers for stealing the vehicle. Owner of the said vehicle claimed compensa-
tion for the loss of the vehicle, which was accepted by the respondent-
Insurance Company. Appellant-legal representatives of the deceased driver 
filed a claim petition under S. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The 
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed the claim and awarded 
compensation. However, on appeal, High Court holding that the case was 
one of murder and not of an accident, set aside the award. Hence the 
present appeal. 
E 
F 
G 
On behalf of appellants it was contended that the murder of the 
deceased squarely falls within the word 'death' due to accident arising out 
H 
741 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
742 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
of the use of motor vehicle found in Section 163-A(l) of the Act and thus, 
tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation; that the word 'acci-
dent' was not defined under the Motor Vehicles Act and the said Act being 
a beneficial legislation, a liberal interpretation should be given so as to 
achieve the objects of the Act; the appeal filed by the Insurance Company 
was not maintainable for not having obtained the leave of the tribunal as 
required under Section 170 of the Act. 
On behalf of respondent Insurance Company it was contended that 
the death of the deceased driver was caused by felonious act of certain 
unknown persons and the same is not caused by an accident arising out of 
the use of the vehicle; the meaning ascribed to the word 'accident' in the 
Workmen's Compensation Act by judicial pronouncements cannot heap-
plied to the word 'accident' in the Motor Vehicles Act because the object of. 
the two Acts are different. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Murder of the deceased driver was due to an accident 
arising out of the use of motot: vehicle. Thus, trial court was justified in 
awarding compensation to appellant-legal representatives. [750-F) 
1.2. 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. H the dominent intention of the act offelony is to 
kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but 
is a murder simplicitor, while if the case 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. In the 
G 
instant case, the stealing of the auto-rickshaw was the object of felony and 
the murder that was caused in the said process of stealing the auto-
rickshaw is only incidental to the act of stealing of the auto-rickshaw. 
._ ~ 
Therefore, it has to be said that on the facts and circumstances of this case 
the dc3:th of the deceased driver was caused accidentally in the process of 
H 
committing the theft of the auto-rickshaw. (747-D-E; 748-H; 749-A) 
RITA DEVI v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 
743 
Challis v. wndon and South Western Railway Company, (1905) 2 King's 
A 
Bench 154; Nisbet v. Rayne & Burn, (1910) 1 KB 689 and Board of Manage-
ment of Trim Joint District School v. Kelly, (1914) AC 667,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.