Morung Express News
Dimapur | October 26
The Gauhati High Court’s Kohima Bench (GHCKB) has upheld a compensation award of Rs 6,45,470 to the family of a passenger who died from bullet injuries after a bus collided with a government vehicle near Borpathar in Assam in 2005, holding that the death arose out of the use of a motor vehicle.
In a judgment pronounced on October 22, Justice Nchumbemo Mozhui dismissed an appeal filed by New India Assurance Company Ltd against the January 6, 2025 award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Dimapur. The tribunal had directed the insurer to pay the compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum from February 4, 2015, the date the claim petition was filed.
The case stemmed from an incident on September 15, 2005, when a bus travelling towards Tuensang collided with a Nagaland Government vehicle (Bolero) near Borpathar. According to the judgment, some police personnel from the Bolero entered the bus following the collision, during which a passenger sustained a fatal gunshot injury and died at Dimapur Civil Hospital later that day. The court subsequently characterised the death as “accidental murder” in the context of the use of a motor vehicle.
The insurer challenged the award, arguing that the passenger died from a bullet wound rather than injuries sustained in the collision. It also contended that the Bolero was the offending vehicle and that the bus insurer could not be held liable.
However, the claimants argued that the death arose out of the use of a motor vehicle. They also contended that the insurer could not challenge the award on broader grounds because it had not obtained the tribunal’s permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The court observed that an appellate party should not introduce an entirely new case requiring investigation of facts and consideration of evidence not placed before the tribunal. Referring to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant judicial precedents, it held that the passenger’s death occurred while he was an occupant of the bus and arose out of the use of a motor vehicle.
The insurer’s contention that the death resulted from a bullet injury rather than the collision prompted the court to examine whether a murder could constitute an accident under the Motor Vehicles Act. It observed: “In our opinion, if the dominant intention of the act felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simpliciter, while if the cause of murder nor 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.”
Applying this reasoning, the court held that the passenger’s death could be termed “accidental murder” during the use of the vehicle and found no grounds to interfere with the tribunal’s award.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal without costs and directed the insurer to pay the remaining compensation, after adjusting the amount already deposited, to the MACT, Dimapur, within one month for disbursement to the claimants after verification.
It also permitted the first claimant to withdraw the amounts deposited in the High Court registry, subject to verification, if not already withdrawn.
