Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
National Ins Co Ltd., Ysr Kadapa ... vs Shaik Topi Valli, Ysr Kadapa Dist 2 ... on 14 December, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 352 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order
dated 28.01.2016 in W.C. No.5 of 2013 on the file of the Commissioner
for Employee's Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner for
Labour, Kadapa (hereinafter referred to as Commissioner).
2. The deceased Shaik Anwar Basha who is son of claimants herein.
The claimants are the dependents on the deceased. The deceased is
working as driver under opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 is
the owner of Scorpio Vehicle bearing No.AP 04 5515 and the said
vehicle is insured by the Opposite Party No.2 and the policy was in force
at the time of accident. On 01.06.2012 at about 11.00 am upon the
instructions of opposite party no.1 the deceased took the vehicle and
dropped the known persons of the opposite party no.1 at Kadiri, later
the deceased was not traced. Basing on the report of the Village
Revenue Officer, Kurumamidi Grampanchayat of Gandlapenta Mandal,
Anantapur District, a crime was registered vide Crime No.47 of 2012.
Later the police filed the Charge Sheet under Sections 302, 379, 411,
109 and 201 r/w 34 IPC, against the accused. In the Charge Sheet it
was asserted that the deceased was killed / murdered in order to theft
the Scorpio vehicle.
3. The Commissioner after considering both oral and documentary
evidence has awarded an amount of Rs.6,83,424/- (Rupees Six Lakhs
eighty three thousand four hundred and twenty four only) towards
compensation to the claimants/respondent No.1 and 2 herein. As per
the order of the Commissioner, the deceased possessed valid driving
licence and there is no dispute with regard to the said aspect.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company filed the
present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the ground that the deceased was
not died during the course of the employment and that he was
murdered/killed, which does not comes under the purview of the
workmen as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923 and prayed to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and set aside
the order dated 28.01.2016 passed in W.C. No.5 of 2013 on the file of
the Commissioner's Workman.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
claimants/respondents would submit that the Order of the
Commissioner is in accordance with law and in order to theft the
vehicle, the deceased was killed and which comes under the purview of
the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act and prayed to dismiss
the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Both the counsels are not relied on any
judgments.
6. This Court perused judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rita Devi & others v. New India Insurance Company & another1, in the
said judgment a distinction was made between a murder which is not
an accident and a murder which is an accident. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court laid down that:
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. 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
simpliciter, 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.
7. Admittedly in the present case, the felonious act is an accidental
murder for the reason to theft the vehicle. The accused who killed the
deceased, therefore, it amounts to a murder which is an accidental
murder.
8. This Court further perused the Judgment of Gujrath High Court
in National Insurance Company Limited v. Gitaben Saitansinh Rajput and
others2 and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that:
if the dominant intention of the crime is to kill the deceased, then
the killing is a murder simpliciter, but if the murder was not original
intended but, if the murder had been caused in furtherance of any
other crime or if the murder is consequential to some other crime,
then it can be considered to be an accidental murder.
In the present case it is in furtherance of committing theft of
Scorpio vehicle, the accused murdered the deceased for gain.
2000 SCC OnLine SC 826
2009 (2) TN M.A.C. 399
9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
Commissioner has not answered the issue in proper perspective.
Though, it is a fact but the record reveals that the deceased was died
due to murder for gain which amounts to accidental death.
10. This Court relying on the above judgments found no flaw in the
order passed by the Commissioner. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stands closed.
________________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 14-12-2022
Harin
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
C.M.A.No.352 OF 2017
Date: 14-12-2022
Harin
