Deepak Gupta, C.J.

1. This appeal by the State is directed against the award dated 24-01-2012 delivered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 5, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. T.S.(MAC) 26 of 2011 whereby he awarded compensation of Rs. 8,93,384/- in favour of the claimant-widow along with interest.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the deceased Pradip Das was a police constable. He was deputed on escort duty along with other colleagues and was travelling in a vehicle bearing No. TRL-3841 (Canter Truck) on 13.7.1995. When the vehicle reached Hejacherra at about 8-30 a.m. some extremists fired indiscriminately towards the vehicle and the deceased received a bullet injury and died as a result thereof. The claimants claimed that the death of the deceased was a result of a motor vehicle accident whereas according to the State, this was not at all a motor vehicle accident and in fact, this was a result of firing by extremists and, therefore, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award any compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V. Act).

3. A learned Single Judge of this Court delivered a judgment in Smt. Basu Mati Debbarma & two others v. Smt. Anita Debbarma & three others [MAC APP. No. 26 of 2001 and other connected matters] on 19.03.2013 dealing with this aspect of the matter. This judgment holds the field till date. The learned Single Judge after discussing the entire law held that though the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal may have jurisdiction in respect of those persons who were travelling in the vehicle as passengers but the incident would not be a motor vehicle accident in respect of those security persons who were deputed on escort duty for providing security of the movement of the vehicles. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:--

"The security persons who were deputed for escort duty for providing security of the movement of the vehicles and passengers in the extremist infested areas could foresee that their such deployment may invite the peril. This being the part of their engagement that cannot be termed as an accident not merely for that the peril is foreseeable and considering such peril and risk to their life they were given engagement of protecting life of the ordinary civilian, but such suddenness in the turn of events cannot be brought with the construct of accident arising from the use of the motor vehicle. But the State should set-up scheme for adequate compensation and rehabilitation of their dependents. This Court, therefore, is constraint to hold that the appeals filed by the dependants/legal heirs of the deceased security personnel who died in the extremist violence must fail."

4. In view of the law laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court which is being consistently followed by this Court, it is clear that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. I have been informed that the widow of the deceased constable has been given service and all other benefits which are due and admissible to police officials who die in such unfortunate circumstances have been given to his family.

5. The appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside. The claim petition is accordingly dismissed.

6. Send down the lower court records forthwith.