Workmen's Compensation Act | Eligibility For Claim In Case Of Death Depends On Ability To Prove Accident Arose Out Of & In Course Of Employment: J&K High Court

Delineating the critical importance of establishing a causal connection between accidents and employment in workmen's compensation claims the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that in case of an employee's death, claimants must demonstrate a clear link between the accident and the course of employment to be eligible for compensation under Section 3 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.“To be eligible to claim compensation under Section 3 of 1923 Act in case of death of a workman, his legal representatives, the claimants, are required to be prove before the Commissioner that the death by accident has arisen both out of and in the course of employment”, Justice Sanjeev Kumar recorded.Background of the Case:The case involved Suraj Parkash Sharma, a driver who was found murdered in the cabin of his truck. His dependents filed a claim for compensation under the Act, arguing that his death arose "out of and in the course of his employment." The Commissioner awarded compensation to the dependents, directing the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (the insurance company of the employer) to indemnify the employer.The insurance company appealed this decision, arguing that Sharma's death was not due to an "accidental murder" arising out of his employment. They contended the murder was intentional and not a fortuitous event.Observations Of The Court:Emphasising the need for claimants to prove not only that the accident occurred during the course of employment but also that it arose out of the employment Justice Kumar observed,“..The word “and” used between the expression “arising out of” and “in the course of employment” is conjunctive and, therefore, it is incumbent upon the claimants to prove by leading cogent evidence that death of their predecessor-in -interest occurred both, 'out of' and 'in the course of employment”.Citing a Supreme Court judgment in Rita Devi and others vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd, (2000) which laid down the legal principle for differentiating between "accidental murder" and "murder simpliciter" the Court explained that if the primary motive of the criminal act was to kill a specific person, then it's not considered accidental murder. However, if the murder occurred unintentionally during another crime, it could be considered accidental, the bench underscored.In this case, the Court observed that the claimants failed to establish that Sharma's death was an accidental murder arising out of his employment duties and remarked,“The claimants have though amply proved that the at time of his death, the deceased driver was in the course of employment of respondent No.7, yet there is no evidence brought on record to show that the death was an accidental murder occurred out of his employment. The co-relation of death of the deceased driver and nature of his employment is completely missing”.In light of these observations and the legal principles outlined, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's award. However, recognizing the loss suffered by the claimants, the court stipulated that any amount received by them shall not be recoverable.Case Title: National Insurance Co. Vs Rakesh Kumar SharmaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 71Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Workmen's Compensation Act | Eligibility For Claim In Case Of Death Depends On Ability To Prove Accident Arose Out Of & In Course Of Employment: J&K High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags