The State Of Manipur vs Smt. Louriyam Sanahanbi Devi
2022 Latest Caselaw 204 Mani

KABORA Digitally signed
        by
MBAM KABORAMBAM
SANDEEP SANDEEP   SINGH


                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
        Date: 2022.05.13
SINGH   14:06:12 +05'30'



                                                AT IMPHAL


                                     CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 30 of 2018

                      1. The State of Manipur.
                      2. The Under Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur.

                                                                                    Petitioners


                                                        -versus-


                      1. Smt. Louriyam Sanahanbi Devi, aged about 56 years, w/o
                           Louriyam Rajendro Singh.
                      2. Smt. Louriyam Ongbi Romita Devi, aged about 35 years, w/o
                           Late Louriyam Sanjit Singh
                      3. Master Louriyam Albert Singh, aged about 11 years, s/o Late
                           Louriyam Sanjit Singh.
                           (No. 3 is being minor, represented by his natural mother
                           Smt. Louriyam Ongbi Romita Devi, the No. 2)
                           (All are the residents of Nambol Sabal Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
                           Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur.)
                                                                               ... Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR

For the petitioners : Mr. Athouba Khaidem, G.A.

                      For the respondents                     : Mr. A. Deni Sharma, Advocate
                      Date of reserving of Order              : 09.05.2022

                      Date of delivery of Order               : 13.05.2022



               CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 30 of 2018.                                        Page 1

                      JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

Sanjay Kumar (C.J.):

[1]            Motor Accident Claims Case No. 159 of 2014 was filed by the

parents (father, since deceased), widow and son of late Louriyam Sanjit Singh,

a Police Constable of Ukhrul District Police, before the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal at Lamphelpat. The case was thereafter transferred to the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Bishnupur, and renumbered as Motor Accident Claims

Case No. 1 of 2016. This claims case was filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1988'), seeking compensation of

₹.22,33,480/- for the death of Louriyam Sanjit Singh in an ambush by

underground activists while travelling in a motor vehicle owned by the State.

The Tribunal settled five issues for consideration in the case. The

second issue framed was as to whether the claims case was maintainable

or not. Judl. Misc. Case No. 6 of 2017 was filed by the State requesting the

Tribunal to take up the second issue pertaining to the maintainability of the

claims case as a preliminary issue. By order dated 26.10.2017, the Tribunal

accepted the plea of the State. Having considered the preliminary issue, the

Tribunal held that the claims case was maintainable and that there was a need

to go deeper into the matter to clarify the legal position, vide order dated

26.02.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Manipur and its Under Secretary

(Home) filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

[2] Heard Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned Government Advocate,

appearing for the petitioners; and Mr. A. Deni Sharma, learned counsel for the

respondents.

CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 30 of 2018. Page 3 [3] Section 166 of the Act of 1988 applies to claims for compensation

arising out of accidents involving motor vehicles and in cases of death, where

the death is essentially accidental as opposed to intentional. As the police

constable admittedly died in an ambush by underground activists, the State

would contend that it was not an accidental death and that no claim would lie

for compensation under Section 166 of the Act of 1988.

[4] The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 1988 reflects

that the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.K. Kunhimohammed vs P.A.

Ahmedkutty and others [(1987) 4 SCC 284] was taken into account,

wherein suggestions had been made to raise the limit of compensation payable

as a result of a motor accident, in respect of death and permanent disablement,

in the event of there being no proof of fault on the part of the person involved

in the accident and also in hit-and-run motor accidents. The proposed legislation

was stated to have been prepared in the light of this background and some of

the important provisions therein were with regard to enhanced compensation in

cases of 'no fault liability' and 'hit-and-run' motor accidents, apart from

payment of compensation by the insurer, to the extent of actual liability, to the

victims of motor accidents irrespective of the class of vehicles.

[5] Section 166 of the Act of 1988, titled 'Application for

compensation', states that an application for compensation arising out an

accident of the nature specified in Section 165(1) may be made by a person who

sustained injury; or the owner of the property; or where death has resulted from

the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or by

CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 30 of 2018. Page 4 any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal

representatives of the deceased, as the case maybe.

[6] Section 165 (1) of the Act of 1988 provides for the adjudicating of

claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily

injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any

property of a third party so arising, or both. Thus, it is clear that the accident

involving the death of a person must arise out of the use of the motor vehicle.

There must therefore be a direct link between the death and the use of the

motor vehicle.

[7] However, in Rita Devi (Smt.) and others Vs. New India

Assurance Co. Limited and another [(2000) 5 SCC 113], the Supreme

Court enlarged the scope of such link. In that case, some persons hired an auto-

rickshaw and then stole it. The dead body of the auto-rickshaw driver was

recovered by the police the next day. The legal representatives of the deceased

driver claimed compensation under the provisions of the Act of 1988 on the

ground that the death was caused in an accident arising out of the use of a

motor vehicle. The Tribunal held in their favour but the High Court reversed it,

holding that there was no accident as contemplated under the Act of 1988 and,

as such, a claim for damages did not lie under the Act of 1988. In appeal, the

Supreme Court noted that the issue for consideration was the legal import of

the words 'death due to an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle.'

The question, per the Supreme Court, was whether a 'murder' could be termed

to be an accident in a given case. Noting that 'murder', as it is understood in

common parlance, is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the

CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 30 of 2018. Page 5 perpetrators of that act normally have a motive against the victim for such

killing, the Supreme Court went on to state that there could be instances where

a 'murder' can be by accident in a given set of facts. According to the Court, the

difference between a 'murder' which is not an accident and a 'murder' which is

an accident would depend on the proximity of the cause of such murder and if

the dominant intention of the act of felony is to kill any particular person, then

such killing is not an accidental murder and it is a murder simplicitor but if the

cause of the murder or the 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 these principles, the Supreme Court noted that

the passengers of the auto-rickshaw decided to commit the felonious act of

stealing it and in the course of achieving the said objective, they eliminated the

driver and, therefore, it could be said that the death of the driver was an

accidental murder. On this basis, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the

Tribunal.

[8] In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shiv Dutt Sharma 2004

A.C.J. 2049, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court held, on the strength of judicial

pronouncements, that if a passenger traveling in a bus suffers an injury on

account of a bomb explosion or other terrorist activities, it would be within his

right to claim compensation under the Act of 1988 and even a person standing

outside who suffers such an injury would be equally entitled.

[9] In Bipal Bashi Das Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

and another [2005 (3) GLT 407], a Division Bench of the Agartala Bench of

the Gauhati High Court was dealing with a claim for compensation by a widow

CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 30 of 2018. Page 6 in relation to the death of her husband in an extremist attack while travelling in

a motor vehicle. In that case, the driver was requested by the passengers of the

hired Jeep to take an alternative route and avoid the route infested by

extremists. However, the driver refused to do so and extremists attacked the

Jeep en route, resulting in the death of the claimant's husband. The Bench noted

that the dominant intention of the extremists was not to kill any of the

passengers in particular but to attack the vehicle and, therefore, when the

dominant intention was not to cause the death of any particular individual but

was an attack on the use of the vehicle, the death arising out of such an

occurrence could be treated as an accidental death.

[10] Though the above decisions are pressed into service by

Mr. A. Deni Sharma, learned counsel, in support of his contention that the death

of the police constable was an accidental death, this Court is not persuaded to

agree with him that the case on hand would fall within the ambit of the principles

laid down in the aforestated case law. It is clear therefrom that the Courts drew

a distinction between 'accidental murder' as opposed to 'murder by intention'.

Only if the death of the person using the vehicle was caused incidentally and

not with the intention that a 'particular person' should be killed, it would amount

to an 'accidental murder', which would be capable of being brought within the

scope of the Act of 1988.

[11] In the case on hand, it is an admitted fact that, on 08.12.2002,

late Louriyam Sanjit Singh, Police Constable, was travelling from Ukhrul to

Imphal in the State's Gypsy vehicle along with other members of Ukhrul District

CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 30 of 2018. Page 7 Police as an escort party of the Superintendent of Police, Ukhrul.

About 7 Km short of New-Heaven, at about 4.00 pm, underground activists

ambushed the vehicle and opened fire on the police. Apart from Louriyam Sanjit

Singh, two others were killed on the spot due to bullet injuries. Three others,

who received bullet injuries, had to be hospitalized. The death of Louriyam Sanjit

Singh was due to laceration of the brain resulting from the bullet injury and was

classified as homicidal in nature.

[12] The intention of the underground activists was to target the

inmates of the vehicle in particular as they were members of the police force. It

was therefore not a random killing, as was the case in Rita Devi (supra) and

Bipal Bashi Das (supra). Though Mr. A Deni Sharma, learned counsel, would

attempt to narrow down the concept of 'particular person' by stating that the

intention should have been to kill Louriyam Sanjit Singh, in particular, this Court

is not inclined to accept such argument. The intention of the activists was to

attack the targeted members of the police force. Therefore, this was not a case

of 'murder by accident', as in Rita Devi (supra), and was an intentional killing

of targeted members of the police force. The death of Louriyam Sanjit Singh

therefore does not qualify as an 'accidental death' by the use of a motor vehicle,

whereby his legal representatives can claim compensation under Section 166 of

the Act of 1988.

[13] Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned Government Advocate, would

inform this Court that ex-gratia and other benefits have already been released

to the legal heirs of late Louriyam Sanjit Singh. Even if so, it is for them to decide

CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 30 of 2018. Page 8 whether they can maintain a lawful claim for more compensation and if so, take

steps before the appropriate forum in accordance with law to claim the same.

Reserving liberty to them to do so, the present revision petition is

allowed, setting aside the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Bishnupur, in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 1 of 2016. In

consequence, this Court holds that the said claims case is not maintainable

under Section 166 of the Act of 1988.

In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE FR/NFR

Sandeep

CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 30 of 2018. Page 9