Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
National Ins Co Ltd., Ysr Kadapa Dist vs Shaik Topi Valli, Ysr Kadapa Dist 2 ... on 14 December, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 352 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 28.01.2016 in W.C. No.5 of 2013 on the file of the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner for Labour, Kadapa (hereinafter referred to as Commissioner).
2. The deceased Shaik Anwar Basha who is son of claimants herein. The claimants are the dependents on the deceased. The deceased is working as driver under opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 is the owner of Scorpio Vehicle bearing No.AP 04 5515 and the said vehicle is insured by the Opposite Party No.2 and the policy was in force at the time of accident. On 01.06.2012 at about 11.00 am upon the instructions of opposite party no.1 the deceased took the vehicle and dropped the known persons of the opposite party no.1 at Kadiri, later the deceased was not traced. Basing on the report of the Village Revenue Officer, Kurumamidi Grampanchayat of Gandlapenta Mandal, Anantapur District, a crime was registered vide Crime No.47 of 2012. Later the police filed the Charge Sheet under Sections 302, 379, 411, 109 and 201 r/w 34 IPC, against the accused. In the Charge Sheet it was asserted that the deceased was killed / murdered in order to theft the Scorpio vehicle.
2
3. The Commissioner after considering both oral and documentary evidence has awarded an amount of Rs.6,83,424/- (Rupees Six Lakhs eighty three thousand four hundred and twenty four only) towards compensation to the claimants/respondent No.1 and 2 herein. As per the order of the Commissioner, the deceased possessed valid driving licence and there is no dispute with regard to the said aspect.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the ground that the deceased was not died during the course of the employment and that he was murdered/killed, which does not comes under the purview of the workmen as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and prayed to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and set aside the order dated 28.01.2016 passed in W.C. No.5 of 2013 on the file of the Commissioner's Workman.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents would submit that the Order of the Commissioner is in accordance with law and in order to theft the vehicle, the deceased was killed and which comes under the purview of the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act and prayed to dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Both the counsels are not relied on any judgments.
3
6. This Court perused judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rita Devi & others v. New India Insurance Company & another1, in the said judgment a distinction was made between a murder which is not an accident and a murder which is an accident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that:
The difference between a "murder" which is not an accident and a "murder" which is an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. If the dominant intention of the Act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simpliciter, while if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder.
7. Admittedly in the present case, the felonious act is an accidental murder for the reason to theft the vehicle. The accused who killed the deceased, therefore, it amounts to a murder which is an accidental murder.
8. This Court further perused the Judgment of Gujrath High Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Gitaben Saitansinh Rajput and others2 and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that:
if the dominant intention of the crime is to kill the deceased, then the killing is a murder simpliciter, but if the murder was not original intended but, if the murder had been caused in furtherance of any other crime or if the murder is consequential to some other crime, then it can be considered to be an accidental murder.
In the present case it is in furtherance of committing theft of Scorpio vehicle, the accused murdered the deceased for gain.1
2000 SCC OnLine SC 826 2 2009 (2) TN M.A.C. 399 4
9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Commissioner has not answered the issue in proper perspective. Though, it is a fact but the record reveals that the deceased was died due to murder for gain which amounts to accidental death.
10. This Court relying on the above judgments found no flaw in the order passed by the Commissioner. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stands closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 14-12-2022 Harin 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO 117 C.M.A.No.352 OF 2017 Date: 14-12-2022 Harin