Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 15.09.2025 vs Smt. Lata Devi & Others on 15 September, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2025:HHC:31720
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.372 of 2006
Decided on: 15.09.2025
.
Kartar Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Lata Devi & others ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1Yes
____________________________________________________ _
For the petitioner : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Surya Chauhan,
r Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior
Advocate, with M/s Tamanna Sharma
and Sana Rana, Advocates, for
respondent No.5.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed order dated 28.06.2006, passed by learned Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in terms whereof, the petition filed under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for the award of compensation by the claimants therein was disposed of by the learned Commissioner in the following terms:-
"The petitioners are entitled to receive compensation of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS 2
2025:HHC:31720 Rs. 4,11,900/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of 28-8-2003 i.e. 1,40,029/-. The principle amount of compensation along with interest liabilities form the date .
of death i.e. 28-8-2003 tall today (i.e. Rs. 1,40,029/-) shall be paid by the respondent No.1. The awarded amount shall be deposited within one month failing which the respondent shall be liable for penalties. The petition is accordingly disposed of and file is ordered to be consigned to record room after completion."
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that even if it was to be assumed that the deceased was indeed engaged by the petitioner as a driver with his tractor, the unfortunate death of the deceased was not on account of any accident or incident which occurred in the course of his employment. He submitted that it is a matter of record that the deceased was found in an injured condition at a place 7 kilometer away from where the tractor was parked and the injuries were implied on the petitioner by some private individuals on account of some personal fued. Petitioner subsequently succumbed to his injuries. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the accused are facing trial under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and all these aspects of the matter have been ignored by the learned Commissioner while deciding Issue No.1 that there was no evidence on record which suggested that the deceased-workman was ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS 3 2025:HHC:31720 murdered in the performance of the act of his employment. He argued that learned Commissioner erred in holding that the death of .
late Shri Joginder Singh was attributable to the course of his employment.
3. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4-claimants submitted that as the deceased was engaged as a driver on the tractor of the petitioner and it was in the course of his employment that he lost his life, the death of the deceased was attributable to his employment and the findings returned to this effect by the learned Commissioner could not be faulted with. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following judgments to substantiate his contentions:-
"1. Rita Devi (Smt.) and Others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 113.
2. Manju Sarkar and others Vs. Mabish Miah and others, (2014) 14 Supreme Court Cases 21.
3. Daya Kishan Joshi and Another Vs. Dynemech Systems Private Limited, (2018) 11 Supreme Court Cases 642.
4. Poonam Devi and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 55."
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5- Insurance Company submitted that as far as the Insurance Company is concerned, it has insured the tractor and it is not the case herein that someone lost his life on account of some accident of the tractor, therefore, either way the Insurance Company has got ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS 4 2025:HHC:31720 nothing to do with the issue between the parties. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the facts involved in the case, the .
Insurance Company does not owe any liability towards either of the parties.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the impugned order as well as other documents on record.
6. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondents-claimants filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, on the plea that late Shri Joginder Singh, their predecessor-in-interest, was engaged by Kartar Singh, on his tractor bearing registration No.HP-67-0261, as a driver. On the fateful night, i.e. 25.08.2003, Kartar Singh had deployed Joginder Singh to carry sand from Saryali Khad to his own house and when Joginder Singh was loading the Sand on his tractor, some miscreants beat him mercilessly and threw his body on Talai-
Bilaspur Road. The deceased scummed to his injuries and died on 28.08.2003. As per the claimants, as the deceased was a workman within the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act, therefore, they were entitled for compensation, as prayed for.
7. The claim was resisted by the owner of the tractor, inter alia, on the ground that the death of the deceased was not due to the direct result of the employment. Deceased was murdered which ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS 5 2025:HHC:31720 was an untoward incident, not expected or designed, which had no connection whatsoever with the employment of the deceased as .
driver of the tractor.
8. Learned Commissioner, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following Issues:-
"1. Whether the deceased late Sh. Joginder Singh was a workman within the purview of Workmen Compensation Act? OPP.
2. Whether the dependents/legal heir are entitled for compensation? OPP.
3. Whether the petition is debarred by efflux of limitation time? OPR5.
4. What is the amount of compensation. OPR.
5. Whether the respondent No.1 liable to pay compensation? If issue supra are affirmative, whether he is to be indemnified by the insurer entirely or part thereof? OPR1 and 2.
6. Final orders."
9. The Issues so framed, were decided by learned Commissioner as under:-
"1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. Rs.4,11,900/-
5. As per operative part of the order."
10. While deciding Issue No.1, learned Commissioner held that Joginder Singh was a workman within the purview of the ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS 6 2025:HHC:31720 Workmen's Compensation Act. Learned Commissioner held that the circumstances of the case were such that the death of the workman .
occurred on account of alleged injuries received by him while he had gone to load Sand/Bajri from a local Naalaha. Though, his body was found lying in an injured state about 7 kilometer away from the tractor, yet the circumstantial evidence including the F.I.R. etc. pointed out the fact that he had driven the vehicle to Dugh Naalaha and his murder was unexpected. Learned Commissioner held that there was no evidence to suggest that the deceased was not engaged in the course of his employment when he was murdered and on these basis, learned Commissioner held that the claimants are entitled to the claim as prayed for in the petition.
11. This Court is of the considered view that in the peculiar facts of this case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner is not sustainable. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, if any personal injury is caused to a workman in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, the pre-condition of the provisions of this Act come into force are 'personal injury caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment'. The moot issue, which this Court has to decide is, as to whether in the circumstances of this case the death of the ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS 7 2025:HHC:31720 deceased on account of him being murdered by persons who had got nothing to do with the present petitioner can be stated to be a .
'personal injury caused to the workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment or not'
12. This Court is of the considered view that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act are attracted only if the injury or death is caused of a workmen by virtue of an incident, which can be attributable to the employment of the deceased or injured directly or indirectly. However, if an injury is suffered by a workman or if a workman dies on account of an act which is not relatable to his employment and which does not arises out of and in the course of his employment, directly or indirectly, then the employer cannot be burdened to pay the compensation.
13. In the present case, it is not the case of the claimants that while the deceased was in the process of either loading or carrying the Sand and a scuffle took place because of this between the deceased and the accused which led to his death. The unfortunate incident, on account whereof, the deceased lost his life had nothing to do with his employment and his act of carrying the Sand from the Naalaha to the house of the petitioner for the purpose whereof he was deployed on the fateful night as per the claimants. It was on account of enmity.
14. Therefore, in this case as the claimants were not able to ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS 8 2025:HHC:31720 prove that there was a some link between the death of the deceased and the employment of the deceased, the provisions of the .
Workmen's Compensation Act will not be attracted.
15. This extremely important aspect of the matter was ignored by the learned Commissioner while passing the impugned order. Learned Commissioner erred in not appreciating that every injury or death which a workman may receive or every death which may occur of a workman, cannot be attributed to his employment.
Some link has to be established between the injury and the employment or the death and the employment and only then the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act come into force.
16. For example, assuming that there is a workman who leaves his house in order to perform his duty and meets with an accident, then herein it can be said that the death or injury so caused is in the course of employment, because had it not been, but for his employment, probably the workman might have not been travelling in that vehicle which met with the accident.
17. However, in the same situation, if the workman leaves his house to join his duty, but he is either injured or killed on account of an old enmity between him and the accused, then obviously such death or injury cannot be said to be attributable to the course of employment.
18. Now, in this backdrop, this Court would also refer to the ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS 9 2025:HHC:31720 judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.1 to 4-claimants.
.
19. In Rita Devi (Smt.) and Others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 113, "....12. In the case of Nisbet v. Rayne & Burn³ where a cashier, while travelling in a railway to a colliery with a large sum of money for the payment of his employers' workmen, was robbed and murdered. The Court of Appeal held:
"That the murder was an 'accident' from the standpoint of the person who suffered from it and that it arose 'out of an employment which involved more than the ordinary risk, and consequently that the widow was entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 1906. In this case the Court followed its earlier judgment in the case of Challis. In the case of Nisbet³ the Court also observed that it is contended by the employer that this was not an "accident" within the meaning of the Act, because it was an intentional felonious act which caused the death, and that the word "accident" negatives the idea of intention'. In my opinion, this contention ought not to prevail. I think it was an accident from the point of view of Nisbet, and that it makes no difference whether the pistol shot was deliberately fired at Nisbet or whether it was intended for somebody else and not for Nisbet.
15. Learned counsel for the respondents contended before us that since the Motor Vehicles Act has not defined the word "death" and the legal interpretations relied upon by us are with reference to the definition of the word "death"::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS 10
2025:HHC:31720 in the Workmen's Compensation Act the same will not be applicable while interpreting the word "death" in the Motor Vehicles Act because according to her, the objects of .
the two Acts are entirely different. She also contends that on the facts of this case no proximity could be presumed between the murder of the driver and the stealing of the autorickshaw. We are unable to accept this contention advanced on behalf of the respondents. We do not see how the object of the two Acts, namely, the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act are in any way different. In our opinion, the relevant object of both the Acts is to provide compensation to the victims of accidents. The only difference between the two enactments is that so far as the Workmen's Compensation Act is concerned, it is confined to workmen as defined under that Act while the relief provided under Chapter X to XII of the Motor Vehicles Act is available to all the victims of accidents involving a motor vehicle. In this conclusion of ours we are supported by Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act as per which provision, it is open to the claimants either to proceed to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act. A perusal of the objects of the two enactments clearly establishes that both the enactments are beneficial enactments operating in the same field, hence the judicially accepted interpretation of the word "death" in the Workmen's Compensation Act is, in our opinion, applicable to the interpretation of the word "death" in the Motor Vehicles Act also."
20. In Manju Sarkar and others Vs. Mabish Miah and others, ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS 11 2025:HHC:31720 (2014) 14 Supreme Court Cases 21, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case where the husband of appellant No.1 therein, .
who was the driver of a Truck, upon reaching Dharmanagar from Agartala, he noticed some mechanical faults in the truck and got down to make the necessary arrangements to repair the vehicle. But, on the intervening night, at about 1:00 a.m. to 1:30 a.m., he met with a road accident and sustained grievous injuries in Assam-
Agartala road in between S.T. para and Kherengjuri under Churaibari Police Station Limit and was taken to Dharmanagar Hospital where he scummed to his injuries in the year hours on 15.05.2005. In this backdrop, Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that in the facts of the case what was relevant was whether Sajal Sarkar continued to be in the course of employment at the time of sustaining injuries in the accident culminating in his death. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the deceased was at Churaibari-
Dharmanagar only on account of his employment as the driver of the truck and there he met with the road accident. On these basis, Hon'ble Apex Court held that the claimants were entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
21. In Daya Kishan Joshi and Another Vs. Dynemech Systems Private Limited, (2018) 11 Supreme Court Cases 642, Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the situation where the deceased-
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS 122025:HHC:31720 workman was employed as an Engineer and was entrusted with the duty to be in the field for promoting his sales/installation of the .
products of the respondent and on the unfortunate day of the accident, the deceased and his co-worker were deputed to test a Filter, which was installed at Hero Honda Factory at Dharu Heda (Haryana) and both of them went from Delhi to check the Filter installed at the said Factory and thereafter, started their journey to Dehli at 4:30 p.m. Unfortunately, while returning back, both the workers met road accident while they were little away from the Hero Honda Factory, which subsequently resulted in the death of the deceased/claimant. In this backdrop, Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the words 'arising out of and in the course of his employment' are in two different phrases and have been understood as such. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of employment, the claim shall succeed unless of course the workman had exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the phrase in the course of employment, suggests that the injury must be caused during the currency of employment, whereas the expressions out of employment conveys the idea that there must be a causal connection between the employment and the injury caused to the workman as a result of the accident. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that when a workman ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS 13 2025:HHC:31720 is on a public road or a public place or a public transport, he is there as any other member of the public and is not there 'in the .
course of his employment' unless the very nature of his employment makes it necessary for him to be there. Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that there must be a casual relationship between the accident and the employment. The expression 'out of employment' is not confined to the mere nature of the employment; the expression applies to employment as such, to its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents. The works 'arising out of employment' are understood to mean that during the course of employment, the injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties. Unless engaged in the duty owned to the employer, it is reasonable to believe that the workman would not otherwise have suffered. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there cannot be any dispute that the question as to when an employment begins and when it ceases, depends upon the facts of each case and there is a notional extension at both entry and exit by time and space. Thereafter, in Para-16 of the judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to earlier judgments of its, which Para reads as under:-
"16. Indian courts have also expounded upon the phrase "arising out of and in the course of employment" in great detail:
16.1. In BEST Undertaking v. Agnes, this Court laid down as under (AIR p. 199, para 12) ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS 14 2025:HHC:31720 "12. Under Section 3(1) of the Act the injury must be caused to the workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
.
The question, when does an employment begin and when does it cease. depends upon the facts of each case. But the courts have agreed that the employment does not necessarily end when the "down tool" signal is given or when the workman leaves the actual workshop where he is working.
There is a notional extension as both the entry and exit by time and space. The scope of such extension must necessarily depend on the circumstances of a given case. An employment may end or may begin not only when the employee begins to work or leaves his tools but also when he used the means of access and egress to and from the place of employment. A contractual duty or obligation on the part of an employer to use only a particular means of transport extends the area, of the field of employment to the course of the said transport.
Though at the beginning the word "duty has been strictly construed, the later decisions have liberalised this concept. A theoretical option to take an alternative route may not one is of proved practical compulsion. But none of the decisions cited at the Bar deal with a transport service operating over a large area like Bombay. They are, therefore, of little assistance, except insofar as they laid down the principles of general application. Indeed, some of the law Lords expressly excluded ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS 15 2025:HHC:31720 from the scope of their discussion cases where the exigencies of work compel an employee to traverse public streets and other public places. The problem .
that now arises before us is a novel one and is not covered by authority."
16.2. Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. (P) Ltd. v.
Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak is also relevant to understand the meaning of "arising out of employment". Ramaswami, J., delivering the judgment for a three-Judge Bench of this Court, held: (SCC p. 611, para 5)
5. ... The words "arising out of employment"
are understood to mean that "during the course of r the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered". In other words, there must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment. The expression "arising out of employment" is again not confined to the mere nature of the employment. The expression applies to employment as such-to its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents. If by reason of any of those factors the workman is brought within the zone of special danger the injury would be one which arises "out of employment". To put it differently if the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of the employment, the claim for compensation must succeed, unless of course the workman has exposed himself to an ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS 16 2025:HHC:31720 added peril by his own imprudent act."
16.3. This Court in ESI Corpn. v. Francis De Costa, laid down three principles for the claimants to prove before .
they can claim compensation under Section 2(8) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948: (SCC p. 13, para
29) "29. (1) there was an accident, (2) the accident had a causal connection with the employment, and (3) the accident must have been suffered in course of employment."
As Section 2(8) of that Act is in pari materia with Section 3(1) of the Act, these principles are relevant for cases under the latter.
16.4. Again, in Union of India v. Surendra Pandeyto this Court has explained the principle of notional extension of employment giving examples as under: (SCC p. 631, para 12).
"12. It was also pointed out by Lord Denning in the aforesaid case of R. v. National Insurance Commr, ex p Michael that the extension of the meaning of the phrase "in the course of his employment has taken place in some cases but in all those cases, the workman was at the premises where he or she worked and was injured while on a visit to the canteen or some other place for a break. The test of what was "reasonably incidental" to employment, may be extended even to cases while an employee is sent on an errand by the employer outside the factory premises. But in such cases, it must be shown that he was doing ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS 17 2025:HHC:31720 something incidental to his employment. There may also be cases where an employee has to go out of his workplace in the usual course of his .
employment. Latham, C.J. in South Maitland Railways Pty. Ltd. v. James 12 observed that when the workmen on a hot day in course of their employment had to go for short time to get some cool water to drink so as to enable them to continue to work without which they could not have otherwise continued, they were in such cases doing something in the course of their employment when they went out for water."
22. On the basis of these findings, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the said case the presence of the deceased on the road in question was incidental to his employment as a Salesman.
23. In Poonam Devi and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 55, Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case of a deceased driver, who in the course of his employment while driving Tata 407, from Ambala to Meerut, when reached the Bridge near Village Fatehpur, went to Yamuna canal to fetch water and also to have a bath, where he unfortunately slipped into the canal and died. In this backdrop, Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold in Para-11 of the judgment as under:-
"...11. Coming to the facts of the present case, the deceased was driving the truck of Respondent 2 from ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS 18 2025:HHC:31720 Ambala to Meerut. Indisputably he was in the course of his employment. We can take judicial notice of the fact that considering the manufacturer's specification, the .
cabin of the truck was not air-conditioned and would have been a baking oven in the middle of the afternoon in the sultry monsoon heat of June 2003, when the temperature was touching 42.6° C in Yamunagar (Haryana) (source: weatheronline.in). It was a compulsion for the deceased to stay fresh and alert not only to protect the truck of Respondent 2 from damage but also to ensure a smooth journey and protect his own life by safe driving. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the possibility of the truck also requiring water to prevent overheating cannot be completely ruled out. In these circumstances, can it be said that the act of the deceased in going to the canal to fetch water in a can for the truck and to refresh himself by a bath before continuing the journey was not incidental to the employment? Every action of the driver of a truck to ensure the safety of the truck belonging to the employer and to ensure his own safety by a safe journey for himself has to be considered as incidental to the employment by extension of the notional employment theory. A truck driver who would not keep himself fresh to drive in such heat would be a potential danger to others on the road by reason of any bona fide errors of judgment by reason of the heat. The theory of notional extension noticed in the Agnes and followed in Leela Bai is extracted hereunder: (Leela Bai case², SCC pp. 327-28, para 9)."
24. This Court is of the considered view that the judgments ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS 19 2025:HHC:31720 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the claimants are of no assistance in the facts of this .
case. This is for the reason that as already observed hereinabove, in the peculiar facts of this case, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased was arising 'out of employment or was in the course of employment'. The murder of the deceased was neither arising out of employment nor in the course of employment. Said act was totally foreign to the act of employment of the deceased by the present petitioner. It was not having even a casual connection with employment. The injured was found 7 K.M. away from where the tractor was. No one knows where the scuffle took place. No one knows how injured was there, where he was found injured. Even during the course of this petition, it could not be demonstrated by the respondents-claimants that the murder of the deceased was on account of the employment of the deceased. In other words, said murder was totally alien to the employment and simply because the murder took place while the deceased was allegedly on duty, this cannot be construed as if the said murder or death of the deceased can be said to be arising out of or in the course of employment so as to burden the present petitioner under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
25. Accordingly, in light of above findings, this petition is allowed. Order dated 28.06.2006, passed by learned Commissioner, ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS 20 2025:HHC:31720 under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. is quashed and set aside.
.
26. The petition stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 15, 2025 (Rishi) ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:28:56 :::CIS