The central legal point established in the judgment is that the deceased's murder arose in the course of employment, attracting the provisions of the Employee Compensation Act, and that the insurance company failed to prove a fundamental breach of the policy.

ORDER :

1. The Insurance Company has preferred an appeal against the award dated 07.02.2019 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employee Compensation Act Cum Labour Court Janjgir Champa (in Short as Commissioner) passed in Case No. 17/E.C.A./COC 1B/17(F), by which the learned Commissioner has directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants to tune of Rs. 6,80,867/-, if the compensation is not paid within 60 days then the insurance company is liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum till the actual payment is made.

2. This appeal has been admitted by this Court on 03.08.2021 on the following question of law:-

“Whether the finding of the Commissioner for the Employee’s Compensation recorded at para-10 of the award impugned holding that the vehicle in question was not being used for carrying passengers on hire in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, is perverse.

3. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the claimant No.1 is widow of deceased Rajukumar Sahu, claimant No. 2 Ku. Dipika is the daughter of deceased and Claimants No. 3 and 4 namely Chhattu Lal Sahu and Khel Bai are the father and mother of the deceased. The claimants have filed an application under Section 22 of the Employee Compensation Act before the Commissioner mainly contending that the deceased was the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. CG-11F 8577, On 25.06.2016 the deceased has taken the vehicle with him where he was murdered. It has also been contended that the deceased was working as driver with respondent No.1 for the last one year and at the time of death the deceased was 30 years only and he was earning Rs. 14,000/- per month. The vehicle was insured with the appellant at the time of accident. The amount of compensation has not been deposited by the Insurance Company or the employer, therefore, the claimants have filed the application for compensation. It is further contended that the deceased father has lodged the missing report No. 31/2016 before the police Station Janjgir. It was brought to the notice of the claimants that the vehicle was looted by some unknown person on 25.06.2016 and has murdered the driver and thereafter they threw away the dead body of the deceased near Heerakund Dam, Orissa. On the basis of missing report, Crime No. 28 of 2017, for commission of offence under Sections 364, 302, 201(B), 404, 34 IPC was registered against Alok Jaiswal and others. Since the deceased was murdered during course of employment, therefore, the claimants are entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,00,000/- with 15% interest. It has also been contended that the deceased was getting Rs. 15,000/-per month with allowance of Rs. 150/- per day.

4. The respondent No. 1 has filed the written statement denying the allegation made in the application but admitted the fact that the deceased was employed with him and was getting salary of Rs. 4000/-per month and the vehicle was used for family members only. It has also been contended that the deceased succumbed to death because of the murder committed by unknown person. It is further contended that the deceased without permission allowed unknown persons to sit in the vehicle and the vehicle was taken away by the deceased without his permission, the vehicle was not used for the commercial purpose. It is further contended that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2, therefore, the claim, if any is liable to be payable by the respondent No.2 only and claim against the respondent No.1 deserves to be rejected.

5. Appellant Insurance Company filed the written statement denying the contents of earning of the deceased that he was earning Rs. 14,000/-per month mainly contending that the vehicle was driven in violation of terms of the policy as the policy was issued for personal car policy but the vehicle was used as taxi which is clear violation of the policy, the insurance company is not responsible for payment of compensation and would pray for r