DHELA RANI Vs. DEEPAK PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12th January, 2004 passed by motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Giridih in claim Accident Case No. 47/99, whereby he has dismissed the claim application filed by the claimants-appellants.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The deceased Sound Kumar saw was waiting near his vehicle No. BR. 23p-0672 at the Giridih bus stand for passengers. In the meantime the driver of another offending vehicle No. BR 17p-0687, namely Raju Thathera, quarrelled with the deceased on the issue of taking passengers in the vehicle and thereafter the driver Raju Thathera of vehicle No. BR 17p-0687 turned his vehicle and dashed the same rashly negligently, as a result of which the deceased was crushed under the wheel of the vehicle and died. The claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased sunil Kumar Saw, filed the claim application claiming compensation. The respondent-Insurance Company contested the case by filing written statement stating, inter alia, that the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, raju Thathera was convicted for causing murder under Section 302 I. P. C The defence of the Insurance Company was that the death was not caused by accident but by deliberate act of Raju Thathera with intent to commit murder of the deceased. So the claim application is not maintainable and the insurance Company has no liability. The tribunal, after considering the facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that Sunil Kumar Saw died due to running over the vehicle by the driver Raju Thathera. Before running of the vehicle, there was a quarrel between the deceased Sunill Kumar Saw and Raju Thathera on the issue of passengers. The Tribunal further held that before causing death Raju thathera abused the deceased and threatened to kill him by crushing and in fact after uttering these words and abusing, he crushed the deceased to death. The Tribunal, therefore, held that it was a deliberate act on behalf of raju Thathera and he caused the death deliberately. Hence, the claim application is not maintainable and claimants are not entitled to any compensation eitherfrom the owner of the vehicle or from the Insurance Company.

(3.) MR. Arvind Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing forthe appellant, assailed the impugned award as being contrary to law and the fact available on record. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has committed serious illegality insofar as it failed to take into consideration that death was caused by the use of the motor vehicle and it was an accidental death. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal further failed to consider that it was only due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the deceased was dashed and sustained grievous injuries which resulted in his death. Learned counsel lately submitted that the Tribunal has erred in law in not following the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Rita Devi v. New india Assurance Co. Ltd.