IMPORTANT POINT
Making complaint against co-employee regarding conduct relating to discharge of duties comes within ambit of causal relationship between accident and employment.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Petitioner/Opposite Party has filed this petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act’) challenging order dated 28.7.2008, passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short, ‘State Commission’).

2. Respondent/Complainant’s case is, that it obtained an Insurance Coverage covering risk of catering workers at the site of General Motors India Private Limited, Chandrapura Industrial Estate, Halol, Gujarath, vide Policy dated 16.5.2006 for the period from 19.5.2006 to 18.5.2007. The said policy provided indemnity against legal liability for accident to employees under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘W.C. Act’), The Fatal Accident Act, 1855 and Common Law. On 22.11.2006, one of its employee Sanjay Chandubhai Parmar (since deceased) was talking to his superior in the working place. At that time, another employee Rajesh Amritraj, thinking that deceased was complaining against him to his superior, used criminal force against the deceased and caused several injuries. Ultimately, deceased died on 1.12.2006. Thereafter respondent being employer, deposited a sum of Rs.2,72,152/- with Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, as per order of the Commissioner, which was ultimately paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. Thereafter, respondent approached petitioner to reimburse the said amount on the ground, that under the policy compensation paid to the legal heirs of the deceased is to be indemnified. However petitioner repudiated the claim on the ground, that death of deceased has taken place due to assault by a fellow worker and the same did not arise “out of employment”. This repudiation has made the respondent to file complaint, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore (for short, ‘District Forum’).

3. Petitioner in its written version has stated, that policy was issued in favour of respondent for coverage of workmen’s for the injuries suffered in the course of employment only. But herein, there is ‘No nexus between the user of the policy and cause’. Petitioner issued policy to comply with section 3 of the W.C. Act, which would not extend the coverage to such murder and other deaths. Hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation/reimbursement for the murder of insured employee. Thus, there is no deficiency of service against the petitioner.

4. District Forum vide order dated 6.12.2007, dismissed the complaint.

5. Being aggrieved, respondent filed appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the same. It directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2,72,152/- to the respondent with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the complaint filed before the District Forum till realization. Respondent was also awarded Rs.5,000/- towards cost.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the written submissions filed by both parties and perused the record.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that State Commission erred in mis-interpreting the phrase ‘arising out of employment’. The death may be in the course of employment, but definitely not arising out of employment. As per the policy condition and provisions of Sec.3 of the W.C. Act, compensation is payable only if the injuries are sustained in the course of employment and under the employment. The injuries and the resultant death of the deceased employee had nothing to do with the employment. Further, it was purely a criminal act on the part of the employee in assaulting the deceased employee and therefore not incidental to the nature of job assigned to the respective employees. It is further submitted, that liability of employer would not arise merely because the employee has died in the course of employment. In order to get compensation under the W.C. Act, it is also to be proved that death was on account of the injuries sustained in the accident and which has arisen out of employment. The State Commission, therefore m