- (1.) By way of this order, I shall dispose of FAO No. 5760 of 2002 titled Manjit Kaur and another vs. M/s Mahak Cosmetics and Credit Private Limited and others" and FAO No.408 of 2003 titled "The New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Manjit Kaur and others" as these have emerged out of award dated 9.9.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (in short "the Tribunal") whereby the application filed by the claimants under Sections 163-A and 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( in short "the Act") for grant of compensation to them and proforma respondent No. 3 namely Satnam Kaur (in FAO-5760 of 2002) in regard to death of Surjit Singh has been allowed and compensation to the extent of Rs. 4,41,500/- has been awarded.
(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of the present appeals are that as per averments set up in the application by the claimants, on the intervening night of 23/24.11.1999, Surjit Singh was driving truck No. GJ-15-U-5846. He was accompanied by his brother Sahab Singh. They stopped near Rajasthan petrol pump on Delhi Jaipur Highway for taking a cup of tea. Three persons started quarrelling with Surjit Singh and gave severe beating to him with iron rods. Surjit Singh was shifted to Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the occurrence. Three assailants were booked under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") in the case registered vide FIR No. 684 dated 24.11.1999 in Police Station, Vasant Kunj, Delhi.
(3.) The primary dispute around which controversy in the present appeals revolves is whether Surjit Singh sustained injury out of use of motor vehicle to maintain an application under Section 163A of the Act. The parties shall be referred to as the claimants and the insurance company for the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion. Counsel for the insurance company has strenuously argued that as murder of Surjit Singh is not accidental, therefore, the application for grant of compensation under the Act is not maintainable. It is further argued that even if murder of the deceased was committed inside the truck on which he was working as a driver at the relevant time, the same does not bring the case within purview of the expression 'out of the use of motor vehicle' mentioned in Section 163A of the Act. In support of his contention, he has referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Rita Devi vs. New India Assurance Co. Limited, 2000 3 RCR(Civ) 200.;