Jharkhand High Court
National Insurance Company vs Kulsum Khatoon on 13 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 83 of 2011
National Insurance Company, Ramgarh ..... Appellant
Versus
1. Kulsum Khatoon
2. Ejazul Haque .... .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : M/s Shashi Kumar & Santosh Kumar Soni, Advocates
------
CAV ON 16.12.2021 PRONOUNCED ON 13 .01.2022
1. The instant appeal is preferred under Section 30(1) of the
Workmen's Compensation Act by the National Insurance Company against
the award dated 17.02.2011 passed in W.C. Case No. 46/1999 by the
Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Act, Hazaribagh, whereby and
whereunder a compensation of Rs.1,35,560/- has been awarded in favour of
the claimants.
2. The award has been assailed on the following substantial
question of law:-
1. Whether the relationship of employee and employer has been
established between the deceased and the claimants were having
relationship of son and father?
2. Whether the impugned order suffers from wrong appreciation of
provisions of Act?
3. It is also averred that the deceased had gone missing with the
Truck bearing registration No. BHM-8451 on 27.08.1995 whereas the case
was registered on 05.01.1997 under Sections 364 and 379 of the IPC. The
police submitted charge-sheet with the finding that the case to be true without
any clue thereafter the claim case was filed under Section 30(1) of the
Workmen's Compensation Act.
4. This appeal has been heard on the following substantial question
of law:-
Whether the impugned award is perverse for not being based on
evidence, regarding the accident and the relationship of workmen
and employee between the owner and the deceased under the
Workmen's Compensation Act?
5. The instant claim application has been filed by the widow and
minor children of the deceased Abdul Razzaque and Ganesh Kodrala who
were murdered by dacoits and the truck was taken away by them on
27.08.1995. A Station Diary entry being Sanha No. 651 was lodged in the
Industrial Area Hazipur and later on 05.01.1997 FIR was lodged with Hazipur
Thana.
6. The appeal has been preferred on the ground that the deceased
workman driver of the Truck bearing registration N0. BHM-8451 was
kidnapped and murdered during the course of employment, which will not
come within the meaning of accident and accordingly the Insurance Company
shall not be liable for the compensating the claimants.
7. The substantial question of law involved is
Whether murder of an employee during course of employment will
come within the meaning of accident so as to entitle the
Owner/Insurance Company for the compensation amount?
8. Accidental death during course of employment is the sine qua
non for award of compensation under Section 3 of the Employees
Compensation Act, 1923. The expression "arising out of and in the course of
employment" postulates a causal link between death and employment. There
should be some causal relationship between the employment and the resulting
accident of the employee in the course of employment. Causal relationship
pre-supposes that nature of employment was the proximate cause of accident.
There should be some link howsoever tenuous it may be, between the nature
of employment and the accident which can be associated with the hazard of
the work being carried out by the employee. For example, explosion can be an
occupational hazard in persons dealing with petroleum product, but that can
not be in case of one working as a computer programmer. Similarly, while
murder of a security guard can very well be said to have been in the course of
employment, the same cannot be said of a driver in a private or public vehicle.
9. In the present case it is undisputed that the driver was the father
and the owner of the truck was his son. He was abducted along with the truck
and murdered. Murder cannot be termed accidental. The policy of insurance
under the Employees Compensation Act is intended to cover unintentional
accidents and not intentional acts which are homicidal in nature. To accept a
proposition that any death which occurs during course of employment can
be termed to have a causal relationship to the nature of employment will be
against the object and purport of the Act.
The substantial question of law is accordingly answered in favour
of the Appellant/Insurance Company.
Under the circumstance, Judgment and award of the learned
Court below is set aside.
The appeal is allowed. The Insurance Company is permitted to
withdraw the statutory amount.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 13th January, 2022
AFR / Tarun
