The central legal point established is the requirement of proving a causal connection between the accident and employment under Section 3(1) of the 1923 Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. An award dated 24.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Udhampur [‘the Commissioner’]in file No.DWC/2006/10 titled ‘Rakesh Kumar Sharma and others vs. Shamsher Singh and another’, is subject matter of challenge in this appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 [‘1923 Act’].

2. This appeal was admitted to hearing vide order dated 17.09.2021 on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the employer and the insurer are liable to compensate the petitioners/dependents of the deceased even if the deceased has not suffered any injury/died in an accident when admittedly the deceased was found murdered and had neither died because of any injury directly attributable to his employment; and,

(ii) Whether there was any nexus with the nature of employment and the murder and the cause of death, when there is no finding of the Commissioner under workmen’s Compensation Act in this respect.

3. Before addressing the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal, an advertence, though brief, to the factual antecedents leading to the filing of this appeal would be beneficial to put the matter in proper perspective:

The deceased Suraj Parkash Sharma was employed by respondent No.7 herein as driver with vehicle No. JK02E/1581 [‘the Truck’]. The deceased driver had gone to Rajasthan carrying some vegetables in the Truck. While on his way, the deceased driver stated to have parked his Truck at village Jagatpura near Mittal Petrol Pump. It was on 1st of November, 2005, one Sh. Sham Lal, Sarpanch of village Badwala reported the matter to the police that a Truck bearing Registration No. JK02E/1581 was parked near Jagatpura Mittal Petrol Pump. On examination of the Truck from where a foul smell was emitting, it was found that there was a dead body lying on the back seat of the cabin. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 259/2005 dated 01.11.2005 under Sections 302/201 IPC was registered in the Police Station concerned. It has not come on record as to what happened in the investigation thereafter. On the allegation that respondent No.7 had hired the services of the deceased driver, who was killed during and in the course of employment of respondent No.7, a claim petition was preferred before the Commissioner by three sons, a daughter, a widow and mother of the deceased driver. It was submitted that the Truck was duly insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and that the deceased was earning monthly wages of Rs.6000/-on account of his employment and being a person of the age of 35 years at the time of his death, respondents No. 1 to 5 [‘the claimants] were entitled to compensation, to be computed under the provisions of 1923 Act.

4. The claim petition was contested by the appellant-insurance company by filing written objections. Respondent No.7 also filed his written objections and virtually admitted the claim of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 [‘claimants’].

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner, inter alia, framed four issues. Issues No.1 & 4 which are relevant for the purpose read thus:

“1. Whether the deceased was engaged as workman by the respondent No.1 for driving the vehicle and died during the course of his employment with respondent No.1 ? OPP

2. The cause of death attributed in the petition during the course of employment of insured whether falls under the provisions of terms and conditions of policy. If not, what is its effect ? OPR”.

6. The claimants led evidence in support of their claim and examined one of the claimants, namely Poli Devi as her own witness. The claimants also examined Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sh Charan Dass and Sh Ram Saran as their witnesses. In rebuttal, respondent No.7 produced one Balwinder Singh, his Attorney Holder, whereas the appellant-insurance company produced Sh.S.N.Koul Assistant Manager of the insurance company as its witness. The matter was considered by the Commissioner in light of