AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Dhanapalan, J.—Aggrieved by the award of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-I, Chennai in W.C. No. 158 of 1996 dated
23.8.1997, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal. The claimants 1 and 2 are the respondents herein and they are the parents of the
deceased. The deceased Murugavel was working as a Car Driver under the third respondent for a salary of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. On 18.7.1995, the
deceased went to the house of the third respondent and there, he was instructed to go to Saidapet through her Car bearing Registration No MDA
4063. Subsequently, it was learnt that the deceased Murugavel was not turned up again. Later, it was learnt that the deceased was kidnapped with
the car on 19.7.95 to Trichy, where he was murdered and his body was thrown at Thalinji Main Road, Kulithalai Taluk, Trichy District. The
culprits have taken away the car. The said car bearing Registration No. MDA 4063 was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company at the time
of the incident. The age of the deceased was 25. When the respondents 1 and 2 approached the third respondent, she told them to go to the
appellant/Insurance Company. Thus, the respondents 1 and 2 have filed the application for compensation in accordance with the provisions of the
Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923.
In support of their claim, the respondents have filed Ex.A.1 Transfer Certificate, Ex.A.2 Copy of the First Information Report, Ex.A.3 copy of
post mortem certificate, Ex.A.4, Copy of Death Certificate and Ex.A.5 is the Copy of Insurance policy.
The first respondent D. Sakunthala was examined as P.W.1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, who is an authority under the Workmen''s
Compensation Act, 1923, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and after holding that the murder of the deceased amounts to an
accident, arising out and in the course of his employment, the respondents are entitled to receive the compensation under the Workmen''s
Compensation Act, the respondents have filed Ex.A.5 copy of the insurance policy, from which, it is clear that the car involved in this case was
owned by the third respondent and it was insured with the appellant/insurance company at the time of death of the deceased and there was a valid
insurance and therefore, the appellant/insurance company has to pay the compensation. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, (hereinafter called
the ''Authority'') has passed an award for a sum of Rs. 86,764/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of accident till the date of deposit.
Against the said award, the Insurance Company alone has preferred the above appeal questioning its liability.
Heard Mr.R. Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company and Mr. A. Shanmugaraj, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents 1 and 2.
Mr.R. Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company, by drawing my attention to the specific finding of the
Authority under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, with regard to the authority''s jurisdiction to award the interest from the date of accident, has
contended that the deceased was murdered and the murder does not amount to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and
therefore, the respondents/claimants are not entitled for any compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act (hereinafter called the ""Act"").
In the counter statement filed by the third respondent/owner of the Car before the Authority, she has admitted the employment of the deceased
with her as a driver and stated that the salary was Rs. 1,500/- p.m and the compensation should be paid by the appellant/insurance company. In
the counter filed by the appellant/insurance company before the Authority, they have contended that the vehicle''s documents were not produced
by the third respondent and the respondents 1 and 2 must prove the employment of the deceased with the third respondent and the death of the
deceased during the course of his employment. According to the appellant/insurance company, the death was not due to an accident.
The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company further contended that the award of the Authority under the Workmen''s
Compensation Act is contrary to law on the ground that the death of the deceased was not due to an accident and murder of the deceased does
not amount to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Authority ought to have granted time to deposit the award
amount and has no jurisdiction to award the interest from the date of accident. The learned counsel further contended that the accident has
occurred on 18.7.1995 and the claim petition has been filed only in the month of March 1996 and there was enormous delay on the part of the
respondents 1 and 2 in filing the claim petition.
One of the legal grounds raised by the appellant is that u/s 4 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, there is no provision to grant interest
for the grant of compensation amount and the reasons supported by the Authority are untenable.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has contended that the deceased was working as Car Driver with the third
respondent and the third respondent instructed the deceased to go to Saidapet through her Car bearing Registration No. MDA 4063 and the
deceased was later kidnapped and murdered and his body was thrown at Thalinji Main Road, Kulithalai Taluk, Trichy District. The employer/third
respondent had admitted the employment of the deceased with her as driver and the vehicle, owned by her, is covered by Insurance Policy. The
deceased was in receipt of Rs. 1,500/- p.m as salary and therefore, the respondents/claimants are entitled for compensation. Ex.A.5, Certificate of
Insurance, from which it is clear that the car, involved in this matter, was owned by the employer/third respondent and the same was insured with
the appellant/insurance company at the time of the accident and therefore, the appellant/insurance company has to give compensation as per the
provisions of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923. Ex.A.2, copy of the First Information Report clearly discloses that the body of the
deceased was found Thalinji Main Road, Kulithalai Taluk, Trichy District and the deceased was not in a position to speak, but wrote the phone
number and the number of the car, which belongs to the employer/third respondent.
It is not in dispute that the deceased was driving the car on the fateful day and Ex.A.4 is the copy of the death report, in which, the cause of
death was noted as murder. So, the murder of the workman during his employment amounts to an accident under the Act and therefore,
compensation to be awarded.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for either side. It is seen from the materials that in respect of the
death of the deceased Murugavel, the driver worked under the employer/third respondent, the parents of the deceased prayed for a compensation
of Rs. 2,50,000/- under Sections 10(a) and 4(A) of Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, for an accident, arising out of and in the course of his
employment on 18.7.1995.
The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company, has strenuously contended that the vehicle''s document was not produced by the
employer/third respondent and the respondents 1 and 2 must prove the employment of the deceased with the employer and the death of the
deceased during the course of his employment. In other words, according to the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company that the
deceased, being a tort-feasor, the claimants viz., the respondents 1 and 2/parents of the deceased are not entitled to compensation under the Act .
The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 /claimants have taken me to various decisions of this Court. In the case of Superintending
Engineer, Parambikulam Aliar Project, Pollachi Vs. Andammal, , wherein this Court has held that as the deceased had to be present at the place
where he was murdered by furious persons, this is an accident related to his employment. He relied on another decision reported in 1995 2 IIJ 231
(Southern Railway v. Kanagambal), wherein, this Court has held that the worker was murdered by unidentified persons, the death was due to an
accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. In the case of Smt. Satiya and Others Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, P.W.D. (Buildings
and Roads) and Others, , the Madya Pradesh High Court has held that murder during the employment is an unexpected incident and it should be
considered as an accident.
From the above decisions, it is obvious that in the present case, the murder of the deceased amounts to an accident arising out of and in the
course of his employment and so, the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to receive the compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act.
From the above discussions, it emerges that-
whether the cause of death (murder) amounted to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment?
Whether the quantum of compensation payable to the dependants of the deceased is justified by the authority and in respect of awarding interest
at the rate of 6%?
Before considering the above points, it would be useful to refer certain salient features with regard to the determination of the questions
involved in the present case i.e., the accident took place is an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under the Workmen''s
Compensation Act, 1923.
Section 3 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act reads as follows:
Employer''s liability for compensation:
(1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by 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 this chapter:
Provided that the employer shall not be so liable
(a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days;
(b) in respect of any (injury, not resulting in death, (or permanent total disablement) caused by) an accident which is directly attributable to-
(i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or
(ii) the wilful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule, expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of
workman, or
(iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of
securing the safety of workmen.
Section 4-A of the Act reads as follows:
4A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default:
(1) Compensation u/s 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due.
(2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional
payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the workman,
as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the Workman to make any further claim.
(3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner
shall:
(a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent per annum or at
such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the leading rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by
notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and
(b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest
thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty percent of such amount by way of penalty:
Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause(b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to
show cause why it should not be passed.
(3A) The interest payable under Sub-section (3) shall be paid to the workman or his dependant, as the case may be, and the penalty shall be
credited to the State Government.
As per Section 3 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, undoubtedly the employer is liable to pay compensation in respect of personal injury
or death caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II.
Section 4 provides how the amount of compensation is to be determined. As per Sub-section (1) of Section 4-A, compensation u/s 4 shall be paid
as soon as it falls due. It is not disputed that for arriving at a just compensation in case of permanent disablement and death, the factors that are
provided under Schedule IV of the Workmen''s Compensation Act have to be taken note of. The third respondent/owner of the car has stated that
the deceased was in receipt of a salary of Rs. 1,500/-. When that is not disputed the findings of the authority, taking note of all these facts and in
arriving the compensation is found to be reasonable and it would be proper to hold that the deceased would have earned Rs. 1,500/- per month as
a driver of the car. By applying the formula prescribed under Schedule IV, I conclude that the compensation awarded by the Authority is
reasonable as per oral and documentary evidence and in the light of the above decisions referred to above.
Another question to be decided is whether the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to the interest for the said compensation, if so, from what date?
The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance Company has drawn my attention to a decision of this Court in The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd
v. Kaliya Pillai 2002 4 CTC 469, wherein this Court has referred the decisions of the Apex Court in Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi and
others, ; Pratab Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata 1976 A.C.J 141 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Abdul Nazar 1997
Lab.I.C.891.
The term ""fell due"" in Sub-section (1) of Section 4-A is to mean the time when the right to claim compensation accrued due. The employee or
his dependants would be gained by means of interest for the amount due as well as the penalty for the delay. The interest has to be paid to the
employee or to his dependent from one month after the date on which it was actually fell due and the penalty amount has to be credited to the
account of the State Government. This question has been decided by this Court in The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Kaliya Pillai 2002 4 CTC
469, which reads as under:
As stated earlier, the Workmen''s Compensation Act, being a beneficial legislation, considering the object and scheme of the Act, particularly after
insertion of Section 4-A, I hold that interest for the compensation amount would accrue 30 days after the date of accident and not from the date of
quantification. To make it clear I am of the view that the liability to pay interest would run from the date on which the right to receive compensation
accrues in favour of the workmen, viz., the date of the accident and not on the date of issuance of orders by the Commissioner for Workmen''s
Compensation"".
Though the accident had occurred in 1995, the applicants have not been paid any compensation till date and hence, the Insurance Company
was directed to pay the compensation with 6% interest from the date of accident till the date of deposit.
In the light of the above decisions and discussions, the order of the Authority in W.C. No. 158 of 1996 dated 23.8.1997 awarding
compensation of Rs. 86,764/- with 6% interest from the date of accident till the date of deposit is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.
This Court has earlier permitted the respondents 1 and 2 to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited with accrued interest and further directed
to deposit the balance amount in any of the Nationalised banks in Chennai under the re-investment scheme.
While dismissing the appeal, I direct the respondents 1 and 2 to withdraw the balance 50% of the deposited amount along with accrued
interest forthwith.