New Delhi, Aug. 3 -- Can the family of a murder victim claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA) merely because the crime took place inside a motor vehicle? The Supreme Court has answered that question by drawing a fine but significant distinction between the commission of a crime inside a vehicle and an accident "arising out of the use of a motor vehicle", holding that the mere presence of a vehicle in the chain of events is insufficient to attract liability under the Act. A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih held that a claimant seeking compensation under the MVA must establish a causal nexus between the use of the motor vehicle and the death or injury. Where that link is missing, compensation cannot be awarded merely because the offence was committed in, or involved, a vehicle. The ruling came in a case where Anand, the deceased, had left in a car driven by a person known to him, Dilip, and was found dead three days later. The deceased's family alleged that Anand was murdered while travelling in the vehicle and sought compensation under the MVA. While the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the high court accepted the claim, the Supreme Court overturned both decisions, finding no evidence to establish that the death had arisen out of the use of the vehicle. The bench noted that the criminal prosecution itself had failed to establish the "last seen" theory against the accused and that there was no forensic material connecting the car to the murder. There was no evidence of blood stains, hair, skin cells or any indication that the vehicle had been involved in a collision or any other event resulting in the fatal injuries. "Simply because there was a car somehow involved in a chain of circumstances that led to his death, the provisions of the MVA would apply. Some link whatsoever between the car, and the death has to be established," the bench held in its July 22 judgment. The judgment revisits an important line of precedent beginning with Rita Devi Vs New India Assurance Co Ltd (2000), where the Supreme Court had evolved the concept of an "accidental murder". In that case, the court held that where murder is committed in furtherance of another felonious act, such as theft of a vehicle, it may still qualify as an accident under the MVA because the dominant intention was not to kill but to facilitate the theft. Explaining that distinction, the bench quoted the 2000 verdict, which held that if "the dominant intention" is to kill a particular person, the offence is a murder simpliciter....