District & Sessions Judge Fayaz Ahmad Qureshi Rejects Insurer’s Objections; Holds Terror Attack Arose Out of Use of Insured Vehicle, Directs Payment of Compensation with 9% Interest
Nadeem Nadu
Srinagar, July 23 :
In a landmark judgment with significant legal implications, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Srinagar, has held that the families of two Personal Security Officers (PSOs) killed along with senior journalist Dr. Syed Shujaat Bukhari in the June 14, 2018 terror attack are entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, ruling that the incident arose out of the “use of a motor vehicle” and fastened liability on the insurer of the vehicle.
The judgment was delivered by Fayaz Ahmad Qureshi, District & Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Srinagar, while deciding two clubbed claim petitions filed by the legal heirs of slain PSOs Mumtaz Ahmad Awan and Abdul Hamid, who were serving in the Jammu and Kashmir Police at the time of the attack.
In one of the claim petitions, MACP No. 1266/2022, titled Suriya Begum and Others vs. Mst. Tehmeena Kounsar and Another, the Tribunal awarded ₹96,06,180 as compensation in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased PSO.
According to the judgment, the incident occurred on June 14, 2018, near Press Colony, Residency Road, Srinagar, when unidentified militants opened indiscriminate fire on a Tata Hexa (Registration No. JK04D-0066) carrying Dr. Syed Shujaat Bukhari and his two PSOs. All three occupants were killed on the spot.
After examining the pleadings, evidence and legal position, the Tribunal observed that the insured vehicle had become the direct target of the terrorist attack, establishing a clear and proximate nexus between the use of the vehicle and the deaths of its occupants. It held that the claims were maintainable under Sections 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, rejecting the insurance company’s plea that the deaths resulted solely from a terrorist act and therefore did not attract liability under the Act.
Rejecting the insurer’s objections, Judge Fayaz Ahmad Qureshi held that the vehicle was duly insured on the date of the incident and that no breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy had been established. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the respondent insurance company was legally bound to indemnify the claimants.
While computing compensation in one of the petitions, the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at ₹93,78,180 after determining the annual income of the deceased, adding 50 percent towards future prospects, deducting one-fourth towards personal expenses, and applying the multiplier of 15, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal also awarded ₹18,000 towards funeral expenses, ₹18,000 for loss of estate, and ₹1,92,000 towards spousal and parental consortium, taking the total compensation to ₹96,06,180.
Relying upon settled legal principles, including the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, the Tribunal held that no deduction could be made from the compensation on account of any financial benefits already received by the legal heirs of the deceased.
The Tribunal directed the respondent insurance company to deposit the awarded compensation of ₹96,06,180, along with 9 percent annual interest from November 10, 2022, the date of institution of the claim petition, within 30 days.
It further ordered that in the event of failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated period, the compensation shall carry 10 percent annual interest after the expiry of 30 days. The Tribunal also directed that the compensation be released and apportioned among the legal heirs in accordance with the applicable Muslim Personal Law.
The judgment, pronounced on July 23, 2026, is being regarded as an important legal precedent, reaffirming that where a terrorist attack bears a direct nexus with the use of an insured motor vehicle, the resulting deaths can fall within the ambit of the Motor Vehicles Act, thereby entitling the victims’ families to statutory compensation. The ruling also settles the issue of insurer liability in such circumstances by rejecting the objections raised by the insurance company. (KNC)