Delhi High Court
Sh Bhim Singh vs M/S South Haryana Goods Carriers ... on 9 August, 2016
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 9th August, 2016
+ FAO 458/2013
SH BHIM SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv.
versus
M/S SOUTH HARYANA
GOODS CARRIERS PVT LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. (appearance not given), Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the order dated 16th June, 2013 whereby
the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation has dismissed the application
for compensation on the ground that the appellant suffered injury because of
enmity between the two drivers which cannot said to be an accident.
2. The view taken by the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation is
contrary to the well settled law. In Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co.
Ltd., 2000 ACJ 801 (SC), the deceased was employed to drive an auto
rickshaw for ferrying passengers on hire. On the fateful day, the auto
rickshaw was parked in the rickshaw stand at Dimapur when some unknown
passengers engaged the deceased for journey. As to what happened on that
day is not known. It was only on the next day that the police was able to
recover the body of the deceased but the auto rickshaw in question was
never traced out. The owner of the auto rickshaw claimed compensation
from the insurance company for the loss of auto rickshaw. The heirs of the
deceased claimed compensation for the death of the driver on the ground
that the death occurred on account of accident arising out of use of the motor
vehicle. The Apex Court held that the murder to be an accidental murder.
Paras 9 and 10 are relevant and are quoted below:-
"9. A conjoint reading of the above two Sub- clauses of Section
163A shows that a victim or his heirs are entitled to claim from
the owner/Insurance Company a compensation for death or
permanent disablement suffered due to accident arising out of
use of the motor vehicle (emphasis supplied), without having to
prove wrongful act or neglect or default of any one. Thus it is
clear, if it is established by the claimants that the death or
disablement was caused due to an accident arising out of the
use of motor vehicle then they will be entitled for payment of
compensation. In the present case, the contention of the
Insurance Company which was accepted by the High Court is
that the death of the deceased (Dasarath Singh) was not caused
by an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle.
Therefore, we will have to examine the actual legal import of
the words 'death due to accident arising out of the use of motor
vehicle'.
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 differences 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 killings 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
3. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shiv Dutt Sharma, 2004 ACJ 2049
(J&K), two sets of claims were made in this case; one relating to the
accident in a bus and the other relating to an accident where bullets of
terrorists killed the passengers of a bus. The Jammu and Kashmir High
Court held as under:-
"43. On the basis of the judicial pronouncements and the
material which has come on the record, it is concluded:
(i) That a passenger travelling in a bus when he suffers from an
injury on account of bomb explosion or on account of any other
activity including terrorist activity, he would be well within his
rights to claim compensation. This view is spelt out from the
decision given by the Supreme Court of India in Shivaji Dayanu
Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, 1991 ACJ 777 (SC) and the
latter decisions noticed above;
(ii) That even if a person is not actually in the vehicle and is
standing outside and suffers an injury, even in that case
Supreme Court of India has allowed compensation in Shivaji
Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, 1991 ACJ 777 (SC).
Therefore, merely because some of the victims were taken out of
the bus and thereafter shot dead, would not make any
difference;
(iii) That the material which has come on the record justified
the grant of the compensation and the quantum thereof is
accordingly sustained."
4. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 16th June, 2013
passed by the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation is set aside and the
case is remanded back to the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation for
fresh adjudication.
5. The record of the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation be
returned back forthwith along with copy of this judgment.
6. Both the parties shall appear before the Commissioner, Employees'
Compensation on 13th September, 2016.
7. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to learned counsels for the
parties under signature of Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
AUGUST 09, 2016/ak
