The High Court dismissed an insurance company's appeal against a Workmen's Compensation Commissioner's award. The court held that the murder of an employee-driver, occurring while he was being robbed, constituted an 'accidental murder' arising out of employment, making the insurer liable.
Appeal dismissed; award affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FAO No.1558 of 1994 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.1558 of 1994 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.10.2024
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. …..Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sharda Devi and another .....Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Insurance Company is in appeal. Challenge is to the award passed by Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (now renamed as Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 and hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1923').
Deepak Kumar 2024.11.11 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO No.1558 of 1994 (O&M)
2
Toshan someone attacked the driver Suraj Bhan resulting in his death. Dead body was thrown. She thus claimed that the death of her husband Suraj Bhan occurred in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment and, thus, she is entitled to be compensated in terms of Section 4 of the Act of 1923.
Deepak Kumar 2024.11.11 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO No.1558 of 1994 (O&M)
3
relationship with the employment. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Rita Devi vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 5 SCC 113.
“10. The question, therefore, is can a murder be an accident in any given case ? There is no doubt that 'murder'. as it is understood, in the common parlance is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act normally have a motive against the victim for such killing. But there are also instances where murder can be by accident on a given set of facts. The difference between a 'murder' which is not an accident and a 'murder' which is an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. In our opinion, if the dominant intention of the act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simplicitor, while if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder.
Deepak Kumar 2024.11.11 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO No.1558 of 1994 (O&M)
4
"The accident which befell the deceased was, as it appears to me, one which was incidental to his employment as an engine driver, in other words it arose out of his employment. The argument for the respondents really involves the reading into the Act of a proviso to the effect that an accident shall not be deemed to be within the Act, if it arose from the mischievous act of a person not in the service of the employer. I see no reason to suppose that the Legislature intended so to limit the operation of the Act. The result is the same to the engine driver, from whatever cause the accident happened; and it does not appear to me to be any answer to the claim for indemnification under the Act to say that the accident was caused by some person who acted mischievously."
"That the murder was an "accident" from the standpoint of the person who suffered from it and that it arose "out of" an employment which involved more than the ordinary risk, and consequently that the widow was entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. In this case the Court followed its earlier judgment in the case of Challis (supra). In the case of Nisbet, the Court
Deepak Kumar 2024.11.11 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO No.1558 of 1994 (O&M)
5
also observed that "it is contended by the employer that this was not an "accident" within the meaning of the Act, because it was an intentional felonious act which caused the death, and that the word "accident" negatives the idea of intention. In my opinion, this contention ought not to prevail. I think it was an accident from the point of view of Nisbet, and that it makes no difference whether the pistol shot was deliberately fired at Nisbet or whether it was intended for somebody else and not for Nisbet."
There is no denial to the fact that the deceased lost his life in a
murder. There is nothing on record that shows that the perpetrator of the act
Deepak Kumar 2024.11.11 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO No.1558 of 1994 (O&M) 6
had any motive against the victim for the killing. Thus, it cannot be said that the dominant intention behind the act of felony was to kill the deceased. Thus, the inevitable conclusion in terms of the law laid down in Rita Devi's case (supra) is that the murder of the deceased being not intended, is an ‘accidental murder’ and would thus fall within the ambit of 'accident' as enumerated under Section 3 of the Act of 1923. It has also come on record that the deceased was on the duty, driving the vehicle as per the diktat of his employer and, thus, from the point of view of the claimant and the deceased the incident that led to loss of life of the deceased is nothing but an 'accident'.
October 15, 2024 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
Deepak Kumar 2024.11.11 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the incident leading to death of the deceased can be said to be an accident arising out of and during the course of employment?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Rita Devi vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Relied on¶33
Smt. Rita Devi vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 5 SCC 113 · Who else cites this
Challis v. London and South Western Railway CompanyReferred¶37
Challis v. London and South Western Railway Company, 1905(2) King's Bench 154
Nisbet v. Rayne and BurnReferred¶39
Nisbet v. Rayne and Burn, 1910(1) KB 689
Board of Management of Trim Joint District School v. KellyReferred¶45
Board of Management of Trim Joint District School v. Kelly, 1914 AC 667
2 provisions across 1 enactments
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Smt. Sharda Devi
another
Pankaj Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
