ORDER : Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 156/2014, in the matter of Smt. Sanni Bai & Others vs. Viplov Rai & Others, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants has been dismissed, the present appeal is being preferred. 2. The averment in this appeal, in brief, is that the appellants/claimants filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation from the respondents on account of the death of one Lachhu Karma, who met with a motor vehicle accident on 03.04.2010. The deceased Lachhu Karma was the son of appellant No. 1, the husband of appellant No. 2, and the father of appellant Nos. 3 and 4, and was thus closely related to and dependent upon the appellants/claimants. Respondent No. 1 is the driver of the offending vehicle, respondent No. 2(A) is the registered owner, respondent No. 2(B) is the actual/beneficial owner of the said vehicle, and respondent No. 3 is the insurer thereof. According to the case of the appellants/claimants, on 03.04.2010 the deceased was proceeding from his residence at Village Teknar to Jaram School for his teaching duties on his motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 18B-1201. At about 10:00 a.m., the offending Commander Jeep bearing registration No. C.G. 07 ZD-2925, driven rashly and negligently, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is further stated that the deceased Lachhu Karma was serving as an Assistant Teacher and had been in Government service for the last about 12 years, and was also working on the post of Superintendent, Hostel. He was the sole earning member of the family. The appellants/claimants, being the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 78,50,458/- on account of his untimely death. That, respondent Nos. 1, 2(A) and 2(B) filed their written statements denying the averments made in the claim application and contended that no liability was attributable to them. It was further pleaded that, if any liability were to arise, the same was to be indemnified by respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company, and therefore the claim application was liable to be dismissed against them. It was further pleaded that, if any liability were to arise, the same was to be indemnified by respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company, and therefore the claim application was liable to be dismissed against them. Respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company, also filed its written statement denying the allegations made in the claim application and further contended that the incident in question was a case of murder and not a motor accident, and as such, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. The learned Claims Tribunal framed as many as seven issues and, after consideration, dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants vide judgment and award dated 30.01.2017 (Annexure A/1). Being aggrieved by the said dismissal, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and award dated 30.01.2017 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.), is contrary to law as well as the facts available on record and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. It is further submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the documentary and oral evidence available on record in its correct perspective and has erroneously dismissed the claim petition filed by the dependents of deceased Lachhu Ram Karma. The Tribunal committed a grave error in holding that the appellants/claimants were not entitled to compensation on the ground that the incident did not occur due to a motor accident, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal, while adjudicating the claim, even assessed and calculated the compensation payable to the appellants at Rs. 37,56,720/-. However, despite such determination, the Tribunal wrongly relied upon the police inquiry report instead of considering the final judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Court, thereby arriving at an erroneous conclusion. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the appellants had duly proved the occurrence of the motor accident as well as the consequential death of the deceased. The rejection of the claim solely on the premise that the death was the result of murder is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The rejection of the claim solely on the premise that the death was the result of murder is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that although a criminal case was initially registered against the driver, Viplov Rai, under Sections 302, 149 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, after completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada, in Sessions Trial No. 125/2010, acquitted all the accused persons on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. This fact clearly establishes that the incident was not a case of murder. It is further argued that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the settled position of law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited, Raipur vs. Rani Solanki and Others , MAC No. 182/2013 , decided on 14.08.2020 and reported in (2020) 4 MPHC 116 , wherein it has been held that the liability already fixed under the award would revert back to the insurer if the criminal offence is set aside by the appellate Court (paragraph 20). Learned counsel submits that the appellants/claimants have also filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure before this Court, annexing therewith a certified copy of the judgment dated 04.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada, in Sessions Trial No. 125/2010, whereby the accused persons were acquitted. The said judgment clearly demonstrates that there was no dominant intention to commit murder and that the incident squarely falls within the ambit of a motor accident, satisfying the statutory requirements under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further submitted that the case of the appellants has consistently been that on 03.04.2010, the deceased Lachhu Karma was proceeding from his residence at Village Teknar to Jaram School for teaching work on his motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 18B-1201, and at about 10:00 a.m., the offending Commander Jeep bearing registration No. C.G. 07 ZD-2925 dashed against him, resulting in his instantaneous death. This factual matrix clearly establishes the accidental nature of the incident. Learned counsel emphasizes that despite having determined the compensation payable at Rs. 37,56,720/-, the learned Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim petition, which has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice to the appellants/claimants, who are the dependents of the deceased. This factual matrix clearly establishes the accidental nature of the incident. Learned counsel emphasizes that despite having determined the compensation payable at Rs. 37,56,720/-, the learned Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim petition, which has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice to the appellants/claimants, who are the dependents of the deceased. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 30.01.2017 (Annexure A/1), and award just and reasonable compensation to the appellants/claimants, in the interest of justice. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2(A), the registered owner/driver of the offending vehicle, and respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company, submits at the outset that the impugned judgment and award dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 156/2014, is legal, proper and based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence available on record. The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal, after framing as many as seven issues and upon detailed consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties, has rightly come to the conclusion that the death of deceased Lachhu Ram Karma was not the result of a motor accident but was a case of murder. Therefore, the essential ingredients for maintaining a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act were not satisfied. Learned counsel submits that merely because the appellants have pleaded that the deceased died in a motor accident on 03.04.2010, the same cannot be accepted as gospel truth. The Tribunal has rightly relied upon the police inquiry and material placed on record, which clearly indicated that the incident was homicidal in nature. Thus, the finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as perverse or illegal. It is further contended that the acquittal of the accused persons in Sessions Trial No. 125/2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada, does not ipso facto establish that the incident was a motor accident. Thus, the finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as perverse or illegal. It is further contended that the acquittal of the accused persons in Sessions Trial No. 125/2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada, does not ipso facto establish that the incident was a motor accident. An acquittal in a criminal case on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt does not amount to a positive finding that the death occurred due to an accident involving the insured vehicle. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the burden of proof under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act squarely lies upon the claimants to establish that the death was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. In the present case, the appellants have failed to discharge this burden, and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. It is further submitted that the reliance placed by the appellants on the judgment of the Division Bench in United India Insurance Company Limited, Raipur vs. Rani Solanki and Others is wholly misplaced and distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the liability had already been fixed by a competent Court, whereas in the present case, the Tribunal itself has recorded a categorical finding that the death was not accidental. Hence, the said judgment does not advance the case of the appellants. Learned counsel submits that the application filed by the appellants under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to bring additional evidence on record is an afterthought and cannot be permitted to fill up the lacunae in their case. The learned Tribunal had sufficient material before it to arrive at a just conclusion, and no interference is warranted merely on the basis of subsequent developments. It is further argued that the observation of the Tribunal regarding calculation of compensation to the tune of Rs. 37,56,720/- does not confer any vested right upon the appellants. Once the Tribunal reached a finding that the death was not the result of a motor accident, the question of awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act did not arise at all. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2(A) and respondent No. 3 submits that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity warranting interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2(A) and respondent No. 3 submits that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity warranting interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is nothing but an attempt to reappreciate evidence, which is impermissible in law. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that the present appeal filed by the appellants/claimants be dismissed and the impugned judgment and award dated 30.01.2017 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Claims Tribunal be affirmed, in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 6. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 156/2014, whereby the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed holding that the death of the deceased Lachhu Karma was not the result of a motor accident but a case of murder. 7. The brief facts, as pleaded, are that on 03.04.2010 the deceased Lachhu Karma was proceeding from his residence at Village Teknar to Jaram School for discharging his duties as an Assistant Teacher on his motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 18B- 1201. At about 10:00 a.m., the offending Commander Jeep bearing registration No. C.G. 07 ZD-2925, driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, resulting in grievous injuries, to which he succumbed. The appellants, being the legal heirs and dependents, claimed compensation. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim holding the incident to be homicidal. 8. From the perusal of the pleadings as well as the evidence recorded by the Tribunal, it clearly emerges that the core issue for determination is whether the death of the deceased occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 1 or whether it was a deliberate act amounting to murder. In order to consider this aspect, this Court has carefully re-appreciated the evidence on record. 9. The testimony of Mukesh Kumar Kashyap (A.W.-2), an independent eye-witness, is of considerable importance. In order to consider this aspect, this Court has carefully re-appreciated the evidence on record. 9. The testimony of Mukesh Kumar Kashyap (A.W.-2), an independent eye-witness, is of considerable importance. This witness has categorically stated that on the date and time of the incident, he was also proceeding to attend his duties as Block Coordinator and was following the deceased on the same road. He deposed that the offending Commander Jeep overtook him, thereafter got turtled and dashed against the deceased’s motorcycle. He immediately reached the spot and found the deceased having sustained serious injuries on his head, hands and legs, with one leg amputated. He further stated that he took the deceased to the hospital, but the deceased succumbed to injuries on the way. During cross-examination, the Insurance Company put searching questions to this witness, including suggestions that the deceased was intentionally dashed repeatedly with an intention to kill him. The witness firmly denied these suggestions and stood by his version that the incident was an accident caused by the offending vehicle. Nothing material could be elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. His presence at the spot and witnessing the incident have not been shaken. 10. The evidence of non-applicant witness No. 1, namely, Viplov Rai /respondent No. 1 himself, who was the driver of the offending vehicle, also assumes significance. He categorically stated that the deceased died due to a vehicular accident involving the Commander Jeep and the motorcycle of the deceased. He denied any intentional act or conspiracy and further stated that offences under Sections 302/149, 120-B read with Section 34 IPC were registered, he and the other accused were acquitted by the Sessions Court. This admission further probabilises the case of accident rather than a deliberate act. 11. The Insurance Company examined its witness Shiv Subramanyam Iyer (A.W.-02) as witness No. 2. Though an attempt was made to project the incident as a case of murder, this witness, in the course of his examination, admitted that in the requisition for post-mortem as well as in the post-mortem report, the cause of death was stated to be due to accident and described as “most probable”. In the requisition sending the dead compensation unless there is a breach of policy conditions. 12. No breach of policy has been proved in the present case. In the requisition sending the dead compensation unless there is a breach of policy conditions. 12. No breach of policy has been proved in the present case. It is also relevant to note that in Sessions Trial No. 125/2010, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada, after appreciating the entire evidence including the medical evidence, post-mortem report, and forensic examination of the vehicles, recorded a clear finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges of murder and criminal conspiracy and accordingly acquitted the accused persons. The criminal Court found that the condition of the vehicles was such that the incident could be the result of an accident. This finding strongly supports the case of the appellants. Merely because the family members of the deceased had initially expressed suspicion regarding murder, the same cannot override the consistent ocular, medical and documentary evidence pointing towards an accidental death. The Tribunal appears to have been unduly influenced by such stray doubts expressed by the widow of the deceased, while ignoring the cogent testimony of the independent eye-witness and other reliable evidence on record. 13. The learned Tribunal also erred in discarding the testimony of Mukesh Kumar Kashyap (A.W.-2) without any cogent reason. On a holistic appreciation of the entire evidence, his testimony inspires confidence and is fully corroborated by medical and documentary evidence. The finding of the Tribunal that the death was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is, therefore, erroneous and unsustainable in law. 14. This Court is further fortified by the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited, Raipur vs. Rani Solanki and Others , MAC No. 182/2013 decided on 14.08.2020 , wherein it has been held that once the criminal charge of murder does not stand proved and is set aside, the liability under the Motor Vehicles Act would revive, provided the incident is otherwise established as an accident. It was held thus : “11. Coming to the scope for payment of compensation under the MV Act and the coverage of third party risk, Chapter XI has been provided for insurance of the motor vehicles against the third party risk. It was held thus : “11. Coming to the scope for payment of compensation under the MV Act and the coverage of third party risk, Chapter XI has been provided for insurance of the motor vehicles against the third party risk. Section 146 speaks about the necessity for insurance against third party risk to the effect that no person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of the said Chapter. The requirements of policy and limits of liability have been mentioned under Section 147 of the MV Act; whereas the duty of the insurers to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third party risk has been dealt with under Section 149 of the MV Act. 12. As mentioned already, on occurrence of an accident involving use of a motor vehicle, compensation can be claimed either under Section 163A of the MV Act on the basis of a structured formula (where it is not necessary for the Claimants to plead or prove negligence on the part of the Driver or the Owner) or under Section 166 of the MV Act by proving the negligence on the part of the Driver of the offending vehicle. It is quite possible that in a given case, 'murder' can be an 'accident'. If only it amounts to an 'accident', can it lead to a claim petition, to be filed by the Claimants, seeking compensation in respect of such accident because of the use of the motor vehicle either under Section 163A or under Section 166 of the MV Act. The Claims Tribunal envisaged under Section 165 of the MV Act names the Tribunal as 'Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal' and if it is not an accident, no such claim can be held as maintainable, to be entertained by the Tribunal. 13. The question whether a murder can be an accident in a given case had come up for consideration before the Apex Court in Rita Devi (supra). 13. The question whether a murder can be an accident in a given case had come up for consideration before the Apex Court in Rita Devi (supra). It was a case where some unknown passengers hired an Autorickshaw from an autostand at Dimapur and later, the vehicle was reported stolen and the dead body of the Driver was recovered by the Police on the next day. The Autorickshaw was never recovered and the claim of the owner for the loss of Autorickshaw was considered and sanctioned by the Insurer, satisfying the amount for which it was settled. A claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Driver under Section 163A of the MV Act, claiming compensation for the death as having arisen out of and in the course of his employment. The Tribunal held that it was caused by 'accident' coming within the purview of the MV Act and the owner and the Insurer were liable. The Insurance Company took up the matter before the High Court where it was held that there was no motor accident as contemplated under the MV Act and that it was an act of murder. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal was set aside. This led to the proceedings before the Apex Court where the question was subjected to a threadbare analysis; particularly on the point of 'dominant intention'. The Apex Court observed that there are instances where murder can be by accident on a given set of facts and that the difference between a murder 'which is not an accident' and a murder 'which is an accident' depends upon the proximity of the cause of murder. The Apex Court held that if the 'dominant intention' of the act of felony is to kill any particular person, then such killing is not an accidental murder but a 'murder simplicitor'; whereas, in a case where 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'.” 15. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, there remains no doubt that the death of the deceased was accidental. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, there remains no doubt that the death of the deceased was accidental. Now, coming to the facts and circumstances of the present case in light of the evidence and settled legal position, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the deceased Lachhu Karma died due to injuries sustained in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending Commander Jeep by respondent No. 1. The finding of the Tribunal to the contrary is liable to be set aside. 16. It is also pertinent to note that the learned Tribunal had already assessed the compensation payable to the appellants at Rs. 37,56,720/-, but declined to award the same solely on the erroneous premise that the death was not accidental. Once this premise is found to be incorrect, the appellants are entitled to compensation as determined. 17. Consequently, the impugned judgment and award dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 156/2014 is hereby set aside . It is held that the deceased Lachhu Karma died due to a motor accident that occurred on 03.04.2010 involving the offending Commander Jeep bearing registration No. C.G. 07 ZD-2925, which was being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. 18. Having held that the appellants/claimants are entitled to compensation, this Court further finds it necessary to examine whether the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal had calculated the compensation to the tune of Rs. 37,56,720/-. However, from a perusal of the record, it appears that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the compensation under the conventional heads. 19. The claimants are entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per ' Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. , the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000/-X4+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,92,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 37,14,720 /- in the following manner:- 20. The amount of compensation of Rs. 37,56,720/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 37,14,720/-. The claimants are entitled to get Rs. 37,14,720/-. (40,000/-X4+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,92,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 37,14,720 /- in the following manner:- 20. The amount of compensation of Rs. 37,56,720/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 37,14,720/-. The claimants are entitled to get Rs. 37,14,720/-. The award is modified to the above extent. 21. It is further held that respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company, is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation as recalculated, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit/pay the entire amount of compensation, together with interest as aforesaid, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 22. Subject to the above modification in the quantum of compensation, the appeal stands allowed No order as to costs.