Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Motor Accident Tribunal To Decide Claim Filed By Dependants Of Judge Shot Dead By Militants In 2001

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has directed a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to decide the petition moved by the dependants of a Judge, who was shot dead in his car by militants, while travelling to his hometown.

Car of then Principal District and Sessions Judge Vijay Kumar Phull was intercepted by the militants and he, along with a friend and two bodyguards were shot dead in an open fire. The dependants of the Judge and his friend had moved the Motor Accident Tribunal seeking compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act. The claim was rejected on the ground that it was a case of murder and since the Judge's car was stopped, it could not be said that the accident had arisen "out of use" of motor vehicle.

At the outset, Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that even when the vehicle is immobile, it cannot be stated the motor vehicle was not in use and an accident which arises at a time when the vehicle is not mobile, can well be termed as an "accident arising out of use of motor vehicle".

Moreover, the High Court found that the case, though involved murder, the same was not the "dominant intention" of the militants.

"The dominant intention of the militants was to take away the arms and ammunitions of the armed guards of deceased Sh. Vinod Kumar Phull. It is for this reason that they kept on intercepting vehicles passing through that area and ultimately zeroed on the vehicle in which the deceased were travelling. Once they spotted armed guards travelling in the said vehicle, they showered bullets on the vehicle in which they were travelling which resulted in death of all the four occupants of the vehicle. Thus, it was a case of an accidental murder. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the death of the deceased had taken place on account of use of the motor vehicle," the bench explained.

Accidental murder, the court said, is when cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same has occurred on account of some other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder. If murder has a "causal relationship" with the use of motor vehicle, court said it can be termed as an accidental murder.

The bench relied on Shivaji Dayanu Patil vs. Vatschala Uttam More, 1991 3 SCC 530 where a petrol tanker collided with a truck and later exploded, causing death and injuries. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that there was no causal relationship between the collision and the explosion. It ruled that the incident was an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, despite the four-and-a-half-hour gap between the collision and the explosion.

In view of the said precedent, the bench rejected the contention of the insurer that when the accident took place, the vehicle in question was stopped by the militants.

"It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. If the dominant intention is to kill a particular person, then, such killing is not an accidental murder, but is a murder simplicitor, However, if cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same has occurred on account of some other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder," it held.

The bench added that whether or not the occurrence had taken place due to negligence of the driver or any other person will have to be determined only after framing an issue. Thus, it ordered the claim petitions to be reconsidered by the Tribunal.

Case Title: Seema Phull and another Naina Sodi and others Vs United India Insurance Company and another

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 117

Counsel For Petitioner: Mr.Anuj Dewan Raina Advocate Mr. Ankesh Chandel Advocate

Counsel For Respondent: Mr. D.S.Chouhan Advocate Ms Damini Singh Choushan Advocate Mr. Manik Bhardwaj Advocate.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgement