(1.) The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 22.07.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Budaun in M.A.C.P. No. 21 of 2004 by which the claim petition, under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, of the claimant-respondents, who are dependents of late Naseem Khan (the deceased), have been partly allowed thereby awarding compensation of Rs. 1,79,500/- plus interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.
(2.) The claim case, in short, was that on 09.04.2003, the husband of the claimant No.1, namely, Naseem Khan was traveling in Bus No. UGL 8580 from Aonla to Budaun when, at about 7:30 P.M., two unknown persons, with intent to rob the passengers, boarded the bus near village Parolia and, in the scuffle that ensued, shot at Naseem Khan thereby injuring him which resulted in his death, while taking him to the Hospital. It was claimed that Naseem Khan had a monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- per month from an electric shop, which he was running, and as the death was caused in an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, the claimants, who were dependents of the deceased, were entitled to compensation under the provisions of section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
(3.) The owner of the bus as well as the Insurance Company (the appellant herein) contested the claim on ground that the death was not caused in an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. Instead, it was a case of murder simpliciter, therefore, the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable. It was pleaded that in respect of the incident the father of the deceased lodged a first information report, upon which, the police after investigation laid a charge-sheet under Sections 302/307 I.P.C., which confirms that it was a case of murder, on account of enmity, and not a case of robbery. The owner as well as the Insurance Company further raised objection with regards to the income of the deceased.