- (1.) This appeal has been filed by Insurance Company against the award dated 1.4.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Patiala (in short 'the Tribunal'), under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act'). The facts claimed by the claimants before the Tribunal are reproduced verbatim as under :- " The deceased Chotta Lal alias Chotta Ram son of Sh. Shankar Sharma alongwith the Jatinder and one of his friend had brought the iron from Durgapur to Gobindgarh in truck No. HR-37-A-2034 and after unloading the iron at Gobindgarh, the deceased Chhota Lal was bringing the truck from Gobindgarh to Patiala and he was also having with him Rs. 42,500/- which he has received for the freight charges. That when the truck reached near Petrol Pump National Highway service station near Madhopur Chowk in the area of Police Station Sirhind on the intervening night of 19.3.2003 and 20.3.2003, Chotta Lal alias Chotta Ram had to stay near Madhopur Chowk in the truck because there was shortage of diesel in the truck and the petrol pump was closed so he informed the respondent No. 1 that he will bring the truck No. HR-37-A-2034 from Sirhind to Patiala in the morning. The conductor Jatinder and one of his friend on seeing sum of Rs. 42,500/- with Chotta Lal became greedy and tried to snatch this amount from Chotta Lal to misappropriate the same and when Chotta Lal resisted, they caused the murder of Chotta Lal. Though the act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of snatching the amount from Chotta Lal and as such committed such felonious act that caused murder and as such this murder is an accidental murder. That Chotta Lal alias Chotta Ram has died due to accidental murder arising out of the use of motor vehicle. The death has not been caused due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle as such the claimants are entitled to payment of compensation on structured formula basis."
(2.) It was stated that deceased Chotta Lal @ Chhota Ram was 29 years of age. His monthly income was Rs. 3,000/- per month. It was prayed that respondent No. 1 (owner) and Insurance Company (respondent No. 2) are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amounting to Rs. 8 lacs.
(3.) In the written statement, Insurance Company took the plea that the present claim petition is not maintainable as under the Motor Vehicle Act, only the third party claims are maintainable and not the claim for murder of an employee. The policy covers the accident and not willful act of murder. Therefore, Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of claim petition.;