The court established that the murder of an employee during the course of employment constitutes an 'accident' for claiming compensation under the EC Act.

This appeal is directed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 ( henceforth ‘EC Act’) against the Judgment and order dated 16.11.2015 passed by the Workmen’s (Employees), Commissioner (hereinafter ‘Commissioner), Abhayapuri, Bongaigaon in WC Case No.193/2013 awarding compensation amounting to Rs.7,34,372/- in favour of the claimant/respondent from the date of receipt of judgment and order to disburse within 30 days in default to pay additional 50 % as penalty along with further interest @ 12 % on the ordered amount.

2. The factual matrix leading to this case is that one Akbar Khan, a resident of Village-Bangalpara under Abhayapuri P.S. was a driver by profession and was engaged by the opposite party No.2 i.e. owner of the vehicle, bearing no. AS-19E-2112 as driver of his vehicle. On 27.07.2013, the opposite party No.2 directed his driver to go to Barnihat from Hatigaon, Guwahati to bring his relatives but on the way to Barnihat, some unknown miscreants had kidnapped the driver along with the vehicle and killed the driver and took away the vehicle. Subsequently, the dead body of Akbar Khan was recovered from a place under Barnihat P.S. but the vehicle could not be traced out.

3. In connection with the alleged incident, a case was registered vide Hatigaon PS Case No. 285/2013 under Section 302/379 of the IPC. The claim petition reveals that at the relevant time of incident, the vehicle No. AS-19E-2112 was duly insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. i.e. opposite party No. 1 and the Opposite Party No. 2 was the owner of the said vehicle. The claim petition further reveals that the deceased earned an amount of Rs.7000/-per month for his employment under opposite party No. 2.

4. By filing written statement, the opposite party No. 1 has raised a specific plea that the opposite party No. 2 has violated the policy condition by plying the vehicle on hire or reward as such prays to absorb from liability for payment of compensation by the opposite party No. 1 to the claimant/ respondent Nos. 1 , 2 and 3.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, three issues were framed and after hearing both sides, the Commissioner had examined the parties and permitted them to mark the documents vide Exhibit-1 to 5. The issues have been answered in favour of the claimants and the compensation has been awarded as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

6. The substantial questions of law as taken up by the appellant in this appeal are:-

1.Whether the learned Commissioner had committed manifest error in failing to appreciate that there was violation of the policy condition , thereby relieving the insurer from any liability in this case?

2. Whether the learned Commissioner was legally justified in awarding 50% penalty over and above 12% interest on the amount of compensation?

7. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner, Abhayapuri has no jurisdiction to try the case as the accident occurred at Barnihat in the State of Meghalaya and notice under Section 21 is required for prior information to the jurisdictional commissioner. It is also submitted that the penalty imposed is unsustainable as the insurance company is not liable to pay any such penalty.

8. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation as the owner of the vehicle has violated the policy condition as the alleged vehicle was plying on that day on hire and the learned Commissioner misread the evidence on record and came to an erroneous finding by holding that the vehicle was not put on hire or reward.

9. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following case laws:

1. 2006 Vol 5 SCC 200 ( P.J. Narayan vs. Union of India & Ors)

2. 1997 Vol 8 SCC 1 ( Ved Prakash Garg vs. Premi Devi & Ors)

3. 2023 SCC Online SC 674 ( Managing Director, Kunnel Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. )

4. 2007 Vol. 11 SCC