KD NEWS SERVICE
SRINAGAR, July 23: In a landmark judgment that could have far-reaching implications for compensation claims arising from terrorist attacks involving insured vehicles, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Srinagar, has awarded a total compensation of more than ₹1.92 crore to the families of two Personal Security Officers (PSOs) who were killed alongside noted journalist Shujaat Bukhari in the brutal terrorist attack at Press Colony, Srinagar, on June 14, 2018.
The 42-page award was delivered by District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, Fayaz Ahmad Qureshi, who held that the deaths of the two police personnel arose out of the “use of a motor vehicle” within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, even though the occupants were killed in a terrorist attack while seated inside a stationary vehicle.
The Tribunal disposed of two connected claim petitions filed by the legal heirs of Constable Mumtaz Ahmad Awan and Selection Grade Constable Abdul Hamid, both of whom were serving in the Jammu and Kashmir Police as Personal Security Officers attached to Shujaat Bukhari. Since both petitions arose from the same incident and involved identical questions of law and fact, they were clubbed together and decided through a common award.
According to the Tribunal’s order, a copy of which is in possession of Kashmir Despatch, the incident took place at around 7 p.m. on June 14, 2018, a day before Eid-ul-Fitr when there was considerable public movement in Srinagar. Shujaat Bukhari had stepped out of his office at Press Colony and boarded his private Tata Hexa bearing registration number JK04D-0066 along with his two PSOs. Moments later, terrorists launched a carefully planned attack and opened indiscriminate fire on the vehicle from both sides, killing all three occupants on the spot.
Following the attack, FIR No. 83/2018 was registered and, after an extensive investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT), a chargesheet was filed identifying the terrorists responsible for the assassination. During the proceedings before the Tribunal, evidence presented by the investigating agency established that the terrorists had prior knowledge of the vehicles used by Shujaat Bukhari and had conducted reconnaissance before carrying out the attack. The investigation further revealed that the Tata Hexa itself became the identifying factor through which the assailants were able to trace and execute the attack.
The claimants argued that although the immediate cause of death was terrorist firing, the fatalities nevertheless arose out of the use of the insured vehicle because the occupants were travelling in it and the vehicle itself enabled the terrorists to identify and target them. They submitted that the vehicle had become the instrument exposing the victims to the attack, making the claim maintainable under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The New India Assurance Company Limited contested the petitions and raised two principal objections. It argued that the incident was purely a terrorist act and therefore could not be treated as a motor accident under the Motor Vehicles Act. It further contended that since the Tata Hexa was stationary when the terrorists opened fire, the incident could not be said to have arisen from the “use of a motor vehicle,” thereby excluding liability of the insurer.
Mrs. Tehmeena Kounsar, widow of Shujaat Bukhari and the legal representative of the deceased registered owner of the vehicle, was impleaded as a respondent. She submitted that if any liability arose, it should be borne by the Insurance Company as the vehicle was duly insured. She also pleaded that her husband himself had become the target despite being under police protection.
During the trial, the Tribunal recorded statements of the widows of both deceased police personnel, officials of the Police Department, the investigating officer who was a member of the SIT, and officers representing the Insurance Company.
The investigating officer, Amran Farooq, who was then SDPO Kothibagh and a member of the SIT probing the assassination, deposed that Shujaat Bukhari had received numerous threats from Pakistan-based terrorist organisations and had even been kidnapped on two previous occasions. Owing to these threats, he had been provided Personal Security Officers by the Government.
The officer informed the Tribunal that the investigation had established that the terrorists possessed prior knowledge of both vehicles used by Shujaat Bukhari, making it evident that the vehicle itself played a crucial role in identifying the intended target. He further testified that although the Tata Hexa was stationary at the time of the attack, all three victims were seated inside it when the terrorists opened fire. The SIT investigation identified three terrorists as the perpetrators of the attack, all of whom have since been eliminated.
The Insurance Company’s own witness admitted during cross-examination that the Tata Hexa was covered under a comprehensive insurance policy valid on the date of the incident. He also conceded that he was unaware of any provision of the Motor Vehicles Act specifically prohibiting compensation in cases involving terrorist attacks. Significantly, he acknowledged that compensation claims by drivers and occupants are legally maintainable even where the insured vehicle is stationary.
After examining the evidence, the Tribunal undertook an elaborate analysis of the law governing the phrase “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle.” It referred extensively to judgments of the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh dealing with bomb blasts, terrorist attacks, landmine explosions and similar incidents where victims travelling in vehicles had been held entitled to compensation.
The Tribunal observed that the expression “use of a motor vehicle” has consistently received a broad and liberal interpretation from constitutional courts and is not confined merely to situations where the vehicle is in motion. It held that a stationary vehicle continues to remain in “use” if there exists a causal connection between the vehicle and the occurrence leading to death or injury.
Applying these principles to the present case, the Tribunal concluded that the Tata Hexa had become the very means through which the terrorists identified and tracked Shujaat Bukhari and his security personnel. In a crowded locality like Press Colony, the vehicle enabled the assailants to precisely locate their intended target. The Tribunal further observed that had adequate security precautions and security clearance been followed before movement despite the known threat perception, the tragedy might have been averted.
The Tribunal held that the use of the vehicle had a direct and immediate nexus with the deaths of the occupants. Rejecting the objections raised by the Insurance Company, it ruled that the terrorist attack squarely fell within the ambit of an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
While determining compensation, the Tribunal relied upon the settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, Vimal Kanwar, Syed Bashir Ahmed, and several other landmark judgments governing assessment of compensation in fatal accident claims.
The Tribunal found that Mumtaz Ahmad Awan, aged about 39 years, was drawing a monthly salary of ₹46,316, while Abdul Hamid, aged about 37 years, was earning ₹46,312 per month at the time of their deaths. Both officers left behind widows and three minor children each, making four dependants in every case.
Applying the multiplier of 15, adding 50 per cent towards future prospects, deducting one-fourth towards personal expenses and awarding compensation under conventional heads including funeral expenses, loss of estate and consortium, the Tribunal computed the final compensation.
For the family of Mumtaz Ahmad Awan, the Tribunal awarded ₹96,06,990, comprising ₹93,78,990 towards loss of dependency, ₹18,000 towards funeral expenses, ₹18,000 towards loss of estate and ₹1,92,000 towards spousal and parental consortium.
Similarly, the family of Abdul Hamid was awarded ₹96,06,180, including ₹93,78,180 towards loss of dependency, ₹18,000 for funeral expenses, ₹18,000 towards loss of estate and ₹1,92,000 towards consortium.
The Tribunal categorically rejected the Insurance Company’s plea that pensionary benefits, ex gratia relief, compassionate appointment, welfare funds and other service benefits received by the families should be deducted from the compensation. Referring to binding Supreme Court judgments, it held that such benefits flow from the service conditions of the deceased employees and have no legal nexus with compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, no deduction could be made on that account.
Accordingly, The New India Assurance Company Limited has been directed to deposit the awarded amounts together with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date of institution of the claim petitions within 30 days. In case of default, the amount shall thereafter carry 10 per cent interest until its realization.
The Tribunal also directed that the compensation payable in the case of Abdul Hamid shall be distributed among the legal heirs in accordance with the Muslim Personal Law applicable to the parties.
The judgment assumes considerable legal significance as it reiterates that terrorist attacks involving insured vehicles are not automatically excluded from the ambit of the Motor Vehicles Act where a clear and proximate nexus exists between the use of the vehicle and the fatal occurrence. By affirming that the phrase “use of a motor vehicle” must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation, the Tribunal has reinforced the beneficial object of the Motor Vehicles Act and ensured that dependants of victims are not denied statutory compensation merely because the deaths resulted from terrorist violence rather than a conventional road accident.
