Driver Killed While On Duty Entitled To Compensation Unless Murder Was Personal And Targeted: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has upheld compensation awarded to the family of a truck driver who was murdered by unknown assailants while on duty, holding that the incident amounted to an “accidental death” arising out of and during the course of employment under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri passed the ruling while dismissing appeals filed by the insurer and the employer challenging an order directing payment of compensation to the legal heirs of deceased driver.
The Court also rejected a separate plea filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.
According to the claimants, the deceased was employed as a driver with the company and was driving a truck insured under a valid policy. On the intervening night, while on duty, he was allegedly attacked by unknown persons and later succumbed to his injuries.
The insurance company argued that the case involved “murder simpliciter” and not an accident, contending that compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act would not be payable in cases of intentional homicide.
The employer also disputed liability, arguing that the death did not occur in the course of employment.
Rejecting the contentions, the Court found that the employer-employee relationship stood clearly established through witness testimony as well as admissions made by the employer's director.
On the question whether the killing could be treated as an accidental death, the Court referred to Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2000) where the Supreme Court distinguished between “murder simpliciter” and “accidental murder”.
The High Court noted that if the dominant intention is specifically to kill a particular person, the act would amount to murder simpliciter; however, where the killing occurs in furtherance of another felonious act, it may still qualify as accidental murder.
The Court also relied on earlier Delhi High Court decisions holding that drivers attacked while performing their duties would still fall within the expression “arising out of and in the course of employment”.
In the present case, the Court found no evidence showing that the deceased had been targeted due to any personal motive. Rather, he was present at the spot solely because of his employment obligations.
“In the absence of any credible evidence establishing that the death of the deceased was murder simpliciter, the incident was rightly considered as murder accident,” the Court said.
As such, it upheld the Commissioner's direction making the insurer liable for compensation while leaving the employer liable for payment of penalty under the Employees' Compensation Act.
Appearance: Ms. Rakhi Dubey and Ms. Arpita Srivastava, Advocates for Appellant; Mr. R.K. Nain, Mr. Daksh Nain, Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Mr. Vikrant Malwal, Mr. Mukul Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Chaudhary, and Mr. Lakshay, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Mr. Shahbaz Ahmad Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.7.
Case title: M/S National Insurance Co Ltd v. Sunita Devi & Ors
Case no.: FAO 386/2019