Authority: High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Order Date: 18.09.2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Appellant – Shriram General Insurance Company Limited; Respondents – Ushma Rani and others (claimants, wife and three daughters of the deceased ASI Sanjeev Kumar).
- Nature of Proceeding: Appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Hoshiarpur, dated 05.03.2026.
- Background: On 05.11.2022, ASI Sanjeev Kumar (deceased) and ASI Randhir Singh were deployed at Verka Milk Plant Chowk, Jalandhar to control traffic. A Mahindra Bolero (Reg. No. HP‑86‑4393) driven by respondent No.5, Rajnish Kumar, allegedly ignored a stop signal, accelerated, and struck ASI Sanjeev Kumar, causing fatal injuries. The deceased was taken to Bal Hospital, then Sacred Heart Hospital, where he died the same day.
- Criminal Proceedings: FIR No.144 of 2022 registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC; a challan was also presented.
- Claim Petition: Filed by the deceased’s wife and daughters under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation on account of death.
- Award by MACT: Compensation of Rs.95,04,344 plus interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until actual payment.
- Appellant’s Contentions: The insurer argued that the FIR indicated a murder, not a motor accident, and therefore the claim petition was not maintainable.
- Respondents’ Counter: No evidence of intent to murder was presented; the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving.
- Court’s Reasoning:
1. Intent to murder is irrelevant where the vehicle’s use on the road results in death; liability under the Motor Vehicles Act arises from the accident itself.
2. Cited Supreme Court judgment in Rita Devi v. New India Assurance (2000) distinguishing accidental murder from intentional murder, concluding that even if intent existed, compensation may still be payable.
3. Referred to coordinate bench decisions in FAO‑5855‑2015, FAO‑2558‑2016, FAO‑8006‑2015, and FAO‑5296‑2022, all affirming that the intention of the driver is immaterial and that registration of a criminal case does not bar compensation.
4. Established that the offending vehicle was indeed involved in the accident; therefore, the insurer cannot evade liability by pleading murder.
- Condonation of Delay: The Court allowed the appellant’s application for condonation of a 43‑day delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Final Outcome
- The appeal filed by Shriram General Insurance Company Limited is dismissed.
- The award of Rs.95,04,344 compensation with interest at 6% per annum stands affirmed.
- The 43‑day delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
- Any pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of.
Topics: Compensation, Motor Accident Law