AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Nagamuthu, J.—By consent of both the counsel, this appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.
Admittedly, the respondent was a workman under the Appellant/Corporation as a driver. On 12.05.1997, when the claimant was on duty
driving a bus belonging to the appellant from Inamkulathur to Tiruchirappalli, he was attacked by three persons, in which, he sustained injuries, and
therefore, he was taken to Government Hospital, Tiruchi, from where, he was referred to the Medical College Hospital at Perunthurai, where he
underwent treatment till 21.07.1997, and thereafter, he continued his treatment as out-patient. The claimant has been disabled and as a result, he
was removed from service by the appellant. His age, at time of accident, was 36 years. Claiming compensation for the same, he filed a petition
before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation u/s 23 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act.
In the counter filed before the Tribunal, the appellant has admitted that at the time of accident, the claimant was employed as driver and since he
drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, near Brattiyur, the people of the said village gathered and attacked him. It is further averred in the
counter that the said incident cannot be construed to be an accident, and further, the same cannot be stated to have happened during the course of
employment.
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour has negatived both the contentions of the appellant and has directed the respondent/Corporation to pay a
sum of Rs. 94,589/- as compensation to the claimant. Challenging the same, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Corporation.
When the appeal was admitted, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:
Whether the Tribunal is correct in awarding compensation against the corporation without deciding the issues; Whether the occurrence alleged to
have been happened on 12.05.1997 was due to a risk incidental to the employment of claimant?
Now let me consider the said substantial questions of law.
There is no controversy over the fact that the respondent/claimant was employed as a driver under the appellant during the relevant time. It is
also not in dispute that when the respondent/claimant drove the vehicle at the place of occurrence in a rash and negligent manner, the people of the
said Village got annoyed over the same and they have attacked him, resulting in injuries. In this background, it is to be seen whether the injuries
sustained by the respondent is a personal injury caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment as required u/s 3 of the
Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923. It is to be remembered that the term ''accident'' has not been defined anywhere in the said Act. However,
the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Superintending Engineer, Parmbikularaliyar Project v. Anandammal reported in 1983 (2) LLJ 326 had an occasion
to interpret Section 3 of the said Act. In the said case, a driver of an Auto Rickshaw, owned by an another person and registered as a public
carrier vehicle, was engaged for hire by unknown persons, but subsequently, the vehicle was stolen away and for the said purpose, the driver of
the said auto rickshaw was killed. Claim for compensation was made under the Motor Vehicles Act by the legal heirs of the deceased driver. A
plea was taken by the Insurance Company that the death of the deceased was not due to an ""accident"" arising out of use of the motor vehicle as
required u/s 163-A of the said Act. The said contention of the Insurance Company was negatived by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.
Similarly in Smt. Rita Devi and Others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another, , wherein, it is held as follows:
No doubt ""murder"", as it is understood in the common parlance is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act
normally have a motive against the victim for such killing. But there are also instances where murder can be by accident on a given set of facts. 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.
In the instance case, the stealing of the auto rickshaw was the object of the felony and the murder that was caused in the said process of stealing of
the auto rickshaw was only incidental to the act of stealing of the auto rickshaw. Therefore, it has to be held that D''s death was caused
accidentally in the process of committing theft of the auto rickshaw. Therefore, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the claimants were
entitled to compensation as claimed by them and the High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the death of D was not caused by an
accident involving the use of motor vehicle.
In the said Judgment, the Hon''ble Supreme Court, while comparing the Provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Workmen''s Compensation
Act, has held as follows:
The object of both the Acts, viz, the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen''s Compensation Act 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. This conclusion is supported by Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act under which, 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 certainly applicable to the interpretation of the word ""death"" in the
Motor Vehicles Act also.
In an earlier case, reported in 1983 (2) LLJ 326 Superintending Engineer, Parmbikularaliyar Project v. Anandammal, while dealing with a
similar case, where the workman was murdered during the course of his employment, this Court has held that as the deceased had to be present at
the place, where he was murdered by furious persons only on account of his employment, this Court has held that it is an accident related to his
employment.
A close reading of these Judgments would make it abundantly clear that there is a distinction between an injury caused by an attack by persons
out of motive and an injury caused by persons in a spontaneous occurrence, which lacks any motive. If an employee is attacked while on duty by
persons out of motive, as per the Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, it cannot be held to be an accident arising out of and in the course of
his employment. But, if the injuries caused by an attack made by any person, not out of any motive, but due to certain unforeseen and spontaneous
reasons, then it has to be held that the injury was caused in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
In the case on hand, as narrated above, there was no motive for the assailants to attack the respondent/claimant and they have got annoyed
over the manner in which the vehicle was driven by the claimant. Out of the said provocation, they have attacked the claimant. Thus, the injuries
sustained by the respondent due to the attack made by the Villagers should be held to be an injury sustained by the respondent in an accident
arising out of and in the course of his employment.
Thus, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that the respondent is entitled for compensation under the said Act. In respect
of the quantum of award amount, there is no point urged before this Court warranting any consideration. Thus, in my considered opinion, the
award of the Tribunal, directing the appellant to pay compensation to the claimant does not require any interference, and so, the same is confirmed.
In the result, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected C.M.P and M.P are also dismissed.