Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4928
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, MADURAI BENCH
S. Vimala, J.
The Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Keela Raja Veedhi Pudukkottai – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Rahmath and Others – Respondents
C.M.A. (MD) No. 825 of 2011 and M.P. (MD). No. 3 of 2011
Decided On : 27-04-2012
For the Appellant : S. Ramachandran
For the Respondent: K. Balasundharam
The court established the ownership of the vehicle, the relationship of employer and employee, and the incidental nature of the murder to the use of the motor vehicle, clarifying the jurisdiction of the claims tribunal and the liability of the insurance company.
Headnote:
Murder - Workmen's Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act - [FACT OF THE CASE] Whether death of the deceased Mohammed Sultan was due to murder simpliciter or accidental murder is the intricate question raised in this appeal. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The deceased Mohammed Sultan, a taxi driver, was murdered and the claimants sought compensation. The court found that the deceased was employed as a driver under the first respondent and the murder was incidental to the use of the motor vehicle. The court held that the compensation is payable under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. [ISSUES] The issues considered were ownership of the vehicle, relationship of employer and employee, nature of murder, jurisdiction of claims tribunal, and liability of the insurance company. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court established the ownership of the vehicle, the relationship of employer and employee, and the incidental nature of the murder to the use of the motor vehicle. The court also clarified the jurisdiction of the claims tribunal and the liability of the insurance company. [FINAL DECISION] The appeal was dismissed, and the compensation was made payable as per the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. The compensation awarded by the tribunal was enhanced from Rs.3,24,000 to Rs.3,95,000, to be paid by the insurance company with interest at 7.5% per annum. The court emphasized the responsibility of the insurance company to take a responsible defense in the future.
S. Vimala, J.
1. Whether death of the deceased Mohammed Sultan was due to murder simpliciter or accidental murder is the intricate question raised in this appeal. 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.
1.1. 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.
1.2. 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.
1.3. 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/-.
2. 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.
3. 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 u/s 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 u/s 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.
4. 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.
4.1. 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 uniden
