The Andhra Pradesh High Court while upholding the award granted by MACT held that its jurisdiction can't be ousted merely because murder allegations are levelled.

The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

The division-bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan observed, "In Rita Devi (supra), the question was, can a murder be an accident in any given case? The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the “murder”, as it is understood, in the common parlance is a felonious act where death was caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act normally had a motive against the victim for such killing. But there were also instances where murder could be by accident on a given set of facts. The difference between a “murder” which was not an accident and a “murder” which was an accident, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that, that depended on the proximity of the cause of such murder, and opined that, if the dominant intention of the act of felony was to kill any particular person then such killing was not an accidental murder but was a murder simpliciter, while if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act, then such murder is an accidental murder."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Soora Venkata Sainath.

The Appellant had filed counter in MVOP strongly suspecting the involvement of husband of the daughter of the deceased with the driver of the offending car in causing accident to murder him and to detect the truth he filed the complaint. The police, after investigation, closed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition seeking impartial investigation either by CBI or CBCID. At that time of decision in MVOP, that writ petition was pending. The appellant in his counter submitted that the claimants intentionally suppressed the said fact for getting wrongful gain. The Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending car causing the death of deceased and that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. It was also observed that the property dispute between the claimants or/and the Appellant with the deceased and the rights in the said property was immaterial for the Tribunal in adjudicating the claim of the claimants, arising out of the death of the deceased in an accident.

Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the accident in which the deceased passed away was a deliberate action on the part of the the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident, in which there was criminal conspiracy to do away the life of the deceased Satyanarayana in camouflage in the motor vehicle accident. He submitted that it being a case of murder, the claim petition MVOP was not maintainable and the award of the Tribunal granting compensation is unsustainable. He averred that a proper investigation would reveal that the accident was not accident, but a deliberate act of murder, in the camouflage of the motor vehicle accident and the claimants were also not entitled for the grant of the amount under the award. The Counsel relied on Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. to contend that when there was motor accident as contemplated under the M.V.Act, but it was a camouflage for murder, the petition for compensation under the M.V.Act would not be maintainable and the Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to award compensation.

The Court discussed the cited case law in detail and concluded that jurisdiction of MACT can't be ousted even if murder allegations are levelled.

"The judgment in Rita Devi (supra), also made it clear that if it is established by the claimants that the death or disablement was caused due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, then they will be entitled for payment of compensation. The expression “arising out of” has a wider connotation. For the purpose of awarding compensation, there should be the causal relationship between the use of the motor vehicle and the accident resulting in death or permanent disablement, but the same is not required to be direct and proximate. It can be less immediate. This would imply that accident should be connected with the use of the motor vehicle but the said connection need not be direct and immediate," the Court further observed.

Applying the ratio of the dictun in Rita Devi (supra) to the present case, the Court was of the view that so far as the maintainability of MVOP is concerned, in view of the specific finding recorded that, the deceased died in the motor accident i.e., involving the offending car due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, the claim petition was maintainable by the claimants for claiming compensation. The Tribunal rightly entertained MVOP and awarded the compensation.

It also remarked that the appeal appears to have been filed to deprive the claimants of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The Appeal was accordingly dismissed as non-meritious.

Cause Title: Bodapati Thatarao vs. Bodapati Ramasubbamma and Others

Click here to read/ download Order:








Sheetal Joon