Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Learned counsel for the respondents urged at the time of the hearing that the murder of Suresh Singh was an accident for the purpose of compensation under the Employee‟s Compensation Act. It was submitted that the deceased found himself at a spot where he was assaulted and murdered only because of his employment with the appellant where he was murdered.

5. Whether the murder of the deceased, Suresh Singh was an "accident" arising out of and during the course of his employment? The law on this issue is well settled by the Supreme Court in Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2000 ACJ 801 (SC). The Supreme Court drew distinction between a "murder" which is not an accident and a "murder" which is an accident. The Supreme Court laid down the test that if the dominant intention of the felonious act is to kill any particular person, then such killing is not accidental murder but a murder simpliciter. However, 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. Para 10 of the judgment is relevant and is reproduced hereunder:

(Emphasis supplied)

6. In Rita Devi (supra), the deceased was employed to drive an auto rickshaw for ferrying passengers on hire. On the fateful day, the auto rickshaw was parked in the rickshaw stand at Dimapur when some unknown passengers engaged the deceased for a journey. As to what happened on that day is not known. It was only on the next day that the police was able to recover the body of the deceased but the auto rickshaw in question was never traced out. The owner of the auto rickshaw claimed compensation from the insurance company for the loss of auto rickshaw. The heirs of the deceased claimed compensation for the death of the driver on the ground that the death occurred on account of accident arising out of use of the motor vehicle. The Apex Court held that the murder to be an accidental murder. Para 14 is quoted below:-

Karnataka High Court

23. In M A Kareem Sab v. Palaniyamma, 2013 SCC OnLine Kar 4514, a vehicle was stolen and the taxi driver was killed by the passengers. The Karnataka High Court following Rita Devi (supra), upheld the award for compensation under section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act.

Judgments cited by the appellants

24. In Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation v. Francis De Costa, AIR 1997 SC 432, an employee died in a road accident on his way to the factory one kilometre away from the factory and the claim for compensation was rejected as the accident had not arisen out of and in the course of the employment of the deceased. The ratio of Francis De Costa (supra) does not support the appellant. In the present case, the employee died due to an accidental murder during the course of his employment and the case is covered by Rita Devi (supra) followed by this Court and other High Courts.

28. In Lakshmi v. Proprietor, M/s. Hotel Ajantha, 2002 ACJ 1465, relied upon by the appellant, the Karnataka High Court rejected the claim for compensation in respect of an employee murdered at the work place. However, the Karnataka High Court did not consider Rita Devi (supra) which is a binding precedent. In M A Kareem Sab v. Palaniyamma (supra), the Karnataka High Court, following Rita Devi (supra) upheld the award in the case of murder of taxi driver.

29. It is well settled that judicial precedent cannot be followed as a statute and has to be applied with reference to the facts of the case involved in it. The ratio of any decision has to be understood in the background of the facts of that case. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. It has to be remembered that a decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. The ratio of one case cannot be mechanically applied to another case without regard to the factual situation and circumstances of the two cases. In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. N.R. Vairamani, (2004) 8 SCC 579, the Supreme Court had held that a decision cannot be relied on without considering the factual situation. The Supreme Court observed as under:-