SONA DEVI Vs. RAM NARAYAN SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the claimants -appellants against the order dated 5.3.1998 passed in M.V. Claim Case No. 44 of 1997, Tr. No. 7 of 1997 by 3rd Additional District Judge -cum -Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas at Sasaram whereby he has been pleased to reject the claim of the appellants for grant of compensation under Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: - Deceased, Bahadur Ram, resident of village Jakhini, P. O., Penar, P.S. Nokha, District Rohtas, was a truck driver and on 3.2.1997, he was driving truck bearing UP 65 -B 1952 belonging to Ram Narayan Sah of village Penar, P.S. Nokha, District Rohtas. At about 14.50 P.M. on 3.2.1997 when Bahadur Ram reached near Bakuchi Chowk, P.S. Katra, District Muzaffarpur, some miscreants threw bombs on the truck as a result of which the said Bahadur Ram sustained injuries. The occurrence was witnessed by Chowkidar Bindeshwar Paswan of village Katra, who rushed at the spot and saw some persons running away. The said Bindeshwar Paswan took the injured Bahadur Ram to Katra Hospital for medical treatment but he succumbed to his injuries. It is said that due to the explosion the truck was also damaged and it was suspected that the criminals belonging to gang of Tuntun Singh might have committed the crime. After the occurrence, the said Bindeshwar Paswan gave his fardbeyan on the basis of which Katra P.S. Case No. 3/97 under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act was instituted and thereafter the claimants, who were father, mother, widow, son, daughters, brothers and sisters, filed this claim application for grant of compensation on account of the death of Bahadur Ram which occurred while he was driving the truck bearing registration No. UP -65 -B/1952. The claimants have claimed a total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/ - (Rupees five lacs).

(3.) IT has been argued by the learned Advocate of the appellants that the impugned order is illegal in view of the fact that the Tribunal has failed to differentiate between a murder which is not an accident and a murder which is an accident. The learned Advocate submitted that the murder is a felonious act where the death is caused with intent and motive but where the motive of committing an offence is not to commit murder but to commit some other offences like high -way robbery or dacoity and during the commission of the said offence if the death is caused by the criminals it is a case of accidental murder and not intentional murder. The learned Advocate submitted that in the case of accidental murder, the court is bound to award compensation for the death of the driver. The learned Advocate of the appellants submitted that this case is covered under the definition of accidental murder and not intentional murder as there is nothing on record to establish that the intention of the criminals who threw bomb on the truck driven by the deceased was to cause death of the driver rather the circumstances establish that the offence was committed in order to commit high -way robbery and, therefore, the death of Bahadur Ram was an accidental death and in such cases, the court is bound to grant compensation. In support of his argument, the learned Advocate of the appellants has placed reliance upon the decision reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1930