Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Learned counsel for the respondent urged at the time of the hearing that the murder of Laxmi Narayan 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 as the deceased was on duty.

5. Whether the murder of the deceased, Laxmi Narayan 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:-

(Emphasis supplied)

7. In Rita Devi (supra), the Supreme Court relied on Challis v. London and South Western Railway Company, (1905) 2 KB 154 and Nisbet v. Rayne & Burn, (1910) 1 KB 689 to draw the distinction between the felonious act which accidentally results in death and a murder simpliciter. Paras 11 to 13 of the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:

"11. In Challis v. London and South Western Rly. Co. [(1905) 2 KB 154 : 74 LJKB 569 : 93 LT 330 (CA)] the Court of Appeal held where an engine driver while driving a train under a bridge was killed by a stone wilfully dropped on the train by a boy from the bridge, that his injuries were caused by an accident. In the said case, the Court rejecting an argument that the said incident cannot be treated as an accident held:

13. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Nisbet case [(1910) 2 KB 689 : 80 LJKB 84 : 103 LT 178 (CA)] was followed by the majority judgment by the House of Lords in the case of Board of Management of Trim Joint District School v. Kelly[1914 AC 667 :

83 LJPC 220 : 111 LT 305 (HL)]."

8. In Rita Devi (supra), the Supreme Court compared the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen Compensation Act and held that the object of both the Acts was to provide compensation to the victims of the accidents and the judicial interpretation of the word "death" in both the Acts is the same. Para 15 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-