Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 560

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.
M/S National Insurance Co Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Sunita Devi & Ors. - Respondents
FAO 386 of 2019, CM APPLs. 42620 of 2019 & 5704 of 2020, FAO 45 of 2020, CM APPLs.3625 of 2020 & 3626 of 2020, FAO 281 of 2023, CM APPLs.57037 of 2023 & 57039 of 2023
Decided On : 25-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Rakhi Dubey and Ms. Arpita Srivastava.
For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Nain, Mr. Daksh Nain, Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Mr. Vikrant Malwal, Mr. Mukul Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Chaudhary, and Mr. Lakshay, Mr. Shahbaz Ahmad Naik.

A fatal assault on an employee during the course of employment is considered an 'accident' under the Act when there is a proximate causal connection between the professional duties and the peril faced, provided there is no evidence of a specific, premeditated intent to target the individual.

Headnote:(A) Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 3 - Death of employee - Claim for compensation - Whether murder during the course of employment constitutes an 'accident' - Principles for determination.

(B) Employees' Compensation - Fatal assault on employee - Proximate connection - Where an employee is subjected to an unforeseen peril while performing duties at a designated location, such an incident qualifies as an accident unless there is evidence that the perpetrator specifically targeted the victim with a premeditated motive. (Paras 16, 20, 21)

(C) Appeal - Scope - Appellate jurisdiction is limited to circumstances where the finding of the lower authority is perverse or contrary to law; it does not extend to substituting the court's view for that of the tribunal. (Para 8)

(D) Employer Liability - Penalty - Liability for payment of additional compensation or penalty imposed for failure to pay dues squarely rests upon the employer and not the insurance company. (Para 23)

Facts of the case:
A driver employed by an organization succumbed to injuries after being attacked during the performance of duties. The legal heirs filed for compensation, which was contested by both the employer and the insurance provider. The tribunal awarded compensation and directed the employer to pay a penalty. Multiple appeals were filed by the insurance provider, the employer, and the claimants, respectively.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that a proximate causal connection existed between the employment duties and the occurrence of the incident. It ruled that in the absence of evidence confirming the attack was a targeted, premeditated murder, the death must be treated as an accidental event arising out of and during the course of employment. The court maintained the tribunal's apportionment of liability and found no merit in the claims for wage enhancement.

Issues: Whether a fatal assault occurring while on duty qualifies as an accident for compensation purposes; the extent of appellate authority to reassess findings; and the determination of liability for penal amounts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that when an employee occupies a position involving potential peril while performing professional service, and that peril manifests into a fatal event, the employer is liable. The determination hinges on the proximate relationship between the employment and the accident, emphasizing that such incidents remain accidental unless specific personal animosity or intent to kill the individual is proven.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of death compensation claims under the employees' compensation act (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contention regarding employer-employee relationship and classification of death (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 17 , 18)
3. establishing existence of employer-employee relationship through evidence (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. determination that murder during employment constitutes an accidental event (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. adjudication on penalty liability, compensation enhancement, and final order (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeals arise in the context of a death compensation claim filed by the legal heirs of one Satyaveer Singh @ Satbir (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) under the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the “EC Act”).

Learned Commissioner, vide the impugned order dated 12.07.2019, allowed the claim and directed M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter the “insurance company”) to pay the compensation amount, and directed M/s. C. S. Concrete Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter the “employer”) to pay the penalty amount.

2. While the insurance company and the employer have assailed the impugned order for the respective directions passed against them, the claimants have also sought enhancement of compensation vide their separate appeal.

3. The facts in a nutshell, as stated in the claim application, are that the deceased, during his lifetime, was employed as the driver of a truck bearing no. HR-55-J-7315 owned by the employer. The truck was duly insured and had a subsisting policy from 22.11.2016 to 21.11.2017 issued by the insurance company. The insurance company also charged an additional premium from the employer under the EC Act. It was claimed that on the intervening night of 02.05.2017, the deceased met with an accident which occurred out of and during the course of his employment. It was stated that when the vehicle reached Fatehpur Beri, some unknown miscreants attacked the deceased, while he was on duty. He ultimately succumbed to the injuries sustained as a result of the attack, which led to the registration of DD No. 9A dated 03.05.2017. The post-mortem of the deceased was also conducted at AIIMS Hospital. The claimants stated that, during his lifetime, the deceased was drawing wages @ Rs.15,000/- per month plus @ Rs.200/- per day as food allowance. It was also stated that the employer was aware of the incident, however, failed to provide any compensation, and thus, was liable to pay the penalty.

4. The employer as well as the insurance company appeared before the learned Commissioner and contested the claim application. While the employer denied its liability by stating that the death did not occur out of and during the course of employment, the insurance company contended that the incident was a case of murder and not a vehicular accident, and as such, it was not liable to pay any compensation.

5. Before this Court, learned counsel for the insurance company contended that the employer-employee relationship between the parties has not been conclusively established. Further, it was reiterated that there is no eyewitness to the incident and the learned Commissioner failed to appreciate that, it being a case of murder, no compensation is required to be paid.

6. Learned counsel for the employer submits that the learned Commissioner erred in relying on the testimony of Satendra Kumar, who was neither an eyewitness nor employed with the employer. Further, it was submitted that his testimony would show that the body of the deceased was found 100 meters away from the said truck.

7. Learned counsel for the claimants seeks enhancement of compensation by contending that the learned Commissioner, while granting compensation, took Rs.8000/- as the monthly wages of the employee and, by referring to Section 26 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, submitted that double the amount of the wages ought to have been considered. Si

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 560

A fatal assault on an employee during the course of employment is considered an 'accident' under the Act when there is a proximate causal connection between the professional duties and the peril faced, provided there is no evidence of a specific, premeditated intent to target the individual.

Cases Referred (2)