Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Whether death caused by murder during the course of employment can be deemed as an “accident” for the purposes of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Case Number:M.A.C.M.A. No. 1479/2010
Date of judgement: 04/03/2020
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Shaik Ameer Basha, (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), was an auto-rickshaw driver by profession, aged about 20 years. On the evening of 14/08/2005, Ameer Basha plied a fare to the outskirts of a town, whereby the passengers beat him to death and fled away with the auto. Thereafter, a complaint was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 as he was killed during the course of employment.
The claim was made against the owner of the auto (hereinafter referred to as the owner) and the insurance company (appellant in this matter) and sought to hold them jointly and severally liable. The owner refuted the claim against him and shifted liability to the insurance company, contending that he had an active policy on the day of the accident.
The Insurance Company (appellants) countered by stressing the fact that the deceased was taken away from the auto by some distance and the cause of death was pelting of stones and thus there was no “accident”. It was also contended that the deceased did not have a valid driving license during the time of the incident, thus infringing the policy.
The MACT upon hearing both the parties and based on the evidence awarded a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 in addition to an interest of 7.5% p.a. while holding the owner and the insurance company, jointly and severally liable. This matter before the High Court was an appeal against this decision of the MACT dated 07/07/2009.
The distinction between accidental murder and murder simpliciter
The appellant vehemently asserted that the cause for death was murder and not an “accident” and thus would not be covered by the Insurance Policy. However, the MACT based on evidence adduced by witnesses found that Ameer Basha was killed during the course of a fare by unidentified culprits merely for the sake of stealing the auto. A case of IPC 302 (murder) was registered but no charge sheet was filed as the culprits could not be traced.
The Court recognized that death was not caused as a result of an accident involving the auto but rather caused by a murder committed during the course of his employment. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court case of Rita Devi and others vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2000) ACJ 801, which had similar facts. The Hon’ble Apex Court in that matter differentiated between murder and accident based on the proximity of the cause for such murder. The ratio applied was based on the intention of the culprit. An act that was done with the intention of killing would not be an accident but instead a “murder simpliciter”. However, if the killing was not intended and arose as an incident to another act, that would result in a case of “accidental murder”.
This Apex Court in turn emphasized English Common law case laws to corroborate its ratio. In Challis v. London & South Western Railway Company (1905 2 KB 154), the Court of Appeal held that despite the act being mischievous, the death of the person was an accidental one that arose during the course of employment. In this case, a loco-pilot was killed when a boy dropped a stone from the top of a bridge, yet the Court adopted a magnanimous view in the interests of justice to award indemnification as that was the purpose of the respective statute.
Another King’s Bench decision considered by the Apex Court was that of Nisbet v. Rayne & Burn (1910 1 KB 689). The court construed that died during the course of employment by a felonious act would in fact be an accident from the standpoint of the victim. The application of any other ratio against it would in turn defeat the purpose of that legislation. In light of the aforementioned principles, the Apex Court in Rita Devi held that the stealing of the auto was the object of the felony whereas the death of the auto driver was incidental to the object.
The learned judge also referred to the decision in Shivaii Dayanu Patil & Anr. v. Vatschtala Uttam More (1991 (3) SCC 530) to uphold the rule that compensation was payable even when the accident was not a direct consequence. The decision that revolved around section 92A of the erstwhile Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 held that the accident would have to be connected to the use of the motor vehicle but did not have to be direct or proximate. Section 92A of the 1939 Act has been entailed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as MVA) and would thus apply accordingly in the matter.
The High Court thus held that the MACT had rightly perused the material on record as the accident was in connection to the use of the motor vehicle and subsequently upheld the order directing payment of compensation.
The question of License
The insurance company further contended that the deceased was merely 18 years old who did not even have a Learner’s License and by letting him drive the auto, the owner and the deceased had violated the policy. This claim was substantiated with a record from an RTA Office who stated that there was no license issued by them to the deceased. However, the appellant made a mistake while entering the name and a corrected version was produced before the court. The Court held that the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the deceased’s status of license was undisputed as they had verified the wrong name.
Emphasis was placed on section 9 of the MVA that held a license that could be obtained from an Authority where a person ordinarily resided or carried business or the school from where driving instructions have been received. This was used to substantiate the fact that the deceased could have obtained a license from any RTA and the one produced before the Court was not the only one. The various claims raised by the appellants could not find application as they were unable to substantiate the same with facts. Thus, in light of the narrowly restricted evidence raised, the court held that the issue of not having a valid license would not be dwelt into.
Transfer of ownership and change in policy
The owner of the Auto had himself purchased the auto from another on 04/08/2005. It was also added that a change of name was effectuated in the policy 5 days after the transfer. However, the insurance company contended that they had not been informed about the Transfer and there was no change in ownership according to their records.
A section of the MVA that touches upon the issue of transfer of a certificate of insurance to decide who would be the insured was looked into. Section 157 states that a policy is deemed to have been transferred to the name of another, on the date the vehicle has been transferred. The owner acquired rights over the auto on 04/08/2005 which was before the date of the incident. Hence, the owner would be the insured and the appellant would be the insurer and they would both be jointly and severally liable to compensate the deceased as the incident was an accident based on no-fault compensable under Section 140.
The single-judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High court upheld the impugned order of the MACT as it dismissed the petition against the appellants. Felonies such as murder may be considered accidental murders if the killing was incidental to the object of the crime. In this instance, the object was the theft of the auto-rickshaw, and Ameer Basha’s death was consequent to the act of stealing and would fall under the category of an accident. Moreover, an insurance policy is said to vest with the person to whom the transfer has been made, on the day of the transfer. Hence, the Hon’ble High Court was right in holding the owner and the insurance company jointly and severally liable as the owner was covered by the insurance policy of the appellants.
86540
103860
630
114
59824