Back
Madras High Court
S.VIMALA, J.
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Pudukkottai
Versus
Rahmath & Others
C.M.A.(MD)No.825 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).No.3 of 2011
Decided On : 01-04-2012
murder - Workmen's Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, Section 157 - The court discussed the ownership of the vehicle, the relationship of employer and employee, the nature of the murder, and the jurisdiction of the claims tribunal. The court held that the first respondent was the owner of the vehicle, the deceased was employed as a driver under the first respondent, the murder was an accidental murder, and the claims tribunal had jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, a taxi driver, was murdered and his family filed a petition claiming compensation. The court found that the first respondent was the owner of the vehicle, the deceased was employed as a driver under the first respondent, the murder was an accidental murder, and the claims tribunal had jurisdiction. The court enhanced the compensation awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first respondent was the owner of the vehicle, the deceased was employed as a driver under the first respondent, the murder was an accidental murder, and the claims tribunal had jurisdiction. The compensation awarded by the tribunal was enhanced from Rs.3,24,000 to Rs.3,95,000.
Issues: Ownership of the vehicle, relationship of employer and employee, nature of the murder, jurisdiction of the claims tribunal
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the first respondent was the owner of the vehicle, the deceased was employed as a driver under the first respondent, the murder was an accidental murder, and the claims tribunal had jurisdiction. The compensation was made payable as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs. The compensation awarded by the tribunal was enhanced from Rs.3,24,000 to Rs.3,95,000. The insurance company was ordered to pay the compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum.
Whether death of the deceased Mohammed Sultan was due to murder simpliciter or accidental murder is the intricate question raised in this appeal.
2. The brief facts:-
The deceased Mohammed Sultan, aged 35, who was working as a driver, and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month suffered death on account of murder on 27.06.1997. He was working as a driver in the taxi bearing registration No.TN-55A 5994 of which the first respondent is claimed to be the owner.
2.1. On 27.06.1997, the deceased was waiting in the taxi stand at Pudukottai market and at that time two persons came there and took the taxi for hire. Later on, neither the car nor the deceased returned back. The owner of the car namely, the first respondent Subbiah preferred a complaint before the police.
2.2. On the next day, a dead body was found lying on the barren land of one Abdullah and it was claimed to be an unidentified body. The V.A.O. preferred a complaint to the Melur Police Station. From the tag, bearing the name of the tailor in the shirt of the deceased, the police got a clue that the deceased would have belonged to Pudukottai. They started investigation and found out that it was the taxi driver Mohammed Sultan, who was murdered. The car was undetectable.
2.3. Alleging that the first claimant as the wife, second and third claimants as unmarried daughter and son respectively and the fourth claimant as the mother of the deceased, they filed petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
3. The first respondent filed the counter (which was not enclosed in the typed set of papers) admitting that (the first respondent) he is the owner of the vehicle and that the deceased was working as a driver under him.
4. The Insurance company, the second respondent filed the counter affidavit contending that;
a) The first respondent is not the owner of the vehicle
b) There is no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the first respondent.
c) Selvaraj, the third respondent, is the owner of the vehicle in whose name the registration certificate and the permit stands and that the policy of insurance has been issued only in the name of the third respondent.
d) The accident did not arise out of the use of motor vehicle and as it is a case of murder simpliciter, the claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction.
e) Melur Police had registered a case under Section 302 IPC in Crime number 505 of 1997, based on the report of the VAO, in which involvement of vehicle is not disclosed.
f) There is no privity of contract between the insurance company and the first respondent in respect of the alleged vehicle TN-55A 5994.
g) The liability of insurance company does not arise where the deceased himself was driving the vehicle and he got himself murdered.
h) In any event, irrespective of the contention regarding the maintainability of the petition, the liability of the insurance company shall not exceed Rs.1,97,060/- as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, provided if it is proved that the deceased was the driver of the vehicle, which got involved in the accident.
i) Permission sought under Section 170 of the MV Act to contest the claim on all the grounds available to the insured, if the owner remains ex-parte or fails to contest the claim.
5. Before the Tribunal the wife of the deceased has been examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P6 have been marked. On behalf of the insurance company RW1 and RW2 have been examined and Exs.R1 to R8 have been marked.
5.1. The death certificate filed as Ex.P2 and the certificate of the Sub-Inspector filed as Ex.P3 coupled with Ex.P4 the certificate of the doctor (certifying that the post mortem was done on the dead body of the deceased) proves that the death of the deceased was due to murder. From the perusal of Ex.P1 first information Report and Ex.P5 the final report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station concluding that the case is undetectable, it is evident that originally the body (of the deceased) had remained
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
