Sunita Devi And Ors vs M/S C.S. Concrete Pvt Ltd And Anr

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 17.03.2026
Pronounced on : 25.05.2026
Uploaded on : 25.05.2026

+ FAO 386/2019, CM APPLs. 42620/2019 & 5704/2020
M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Rakhi Dubey and Ms. Arpita
Srivastava, Advocates.

versus

SUNITA DEVI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. R.K. Nain, Mr. Daksh Nain, Mr.
Chandan Prajapati, Mr. Vikrant
Malwal, Mr. Mukul Kumar, Mr.
Abhinav Chaudhary, and Mr.
Lakshay, Advocates for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 6.
Mr. Shahbaz Ahmad Naik, Advocate
for Respondent No.7.

+ FAO 45/2020, CM APPLs.3625/2020 & 3626/2020
M/S C S CONCRETE PVT LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Shahbaz Ahmad Naik, Advocate.

versus

SUNITA DEVI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. R.K. Nain, Mr. Daksh Nain, Mr.
Chandan Prajapati, Mr. Vikrant
Malwal, Mr. Mukul Kumar, Mr.
Abhinav Chaudhary, and Mr.
Lakshay, Advocates for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 6.
Ms. Rakhi Dubey and Ms. Arpita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:25.05.2026
19:24:18
FAO Nos. 386/2019, 45/2020, & 281/2023 Page 1 of 10

Srivastava, Advocates for Respondent
No. 7.

+ FAO 281/2023, CM APPLs.57037/2023 & 57039/2023
SUNITA DEVI AND ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. R.K. Nain, Mr. Daksh Nain, Mr.
Chandan Prajapati, Mr. Vikrant
Malwal, Mr. Mukul Kumar, Mr.
Abhinav Chaudhary, and Mr.
Lakshay, Advocates.

versus

M/S C.S. CONCRETE PVT LTD AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shahbaz Ahmad Naik, Advocate
for Respondent No. 1.
Ms. Rakhi Dubey and Ms. Arpita
Srivastava, Advocates for Respondent
No. 2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeals arise in the context of a death compensation
claim filed by the legal heirs of one Satyaveer Singh @ Satbir (hereinafter
referred to as the “deceased”) under the provisions of the Employees‟
Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the “EC Act”).
Learned Commissioner, vide the impugned order dated 12.07.2019,
allowed the claim and directed M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter
the “insurance company”) to pay the compensation amount, and directed
M/s. C. S. Concrete Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter the “employer”) to pay the penalty
amount.
2. While the insurance company and the employer have assailed the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:25.05.2026
19:24:18
FAO Nos. 386/2019, 45/2020, & 281/2023 Page 2 of 10

impugned order for the respective directions passed against them, the
claimants have also sought enhancement of compensation vide their separate
appeal.
3. The facts in a nutshell, as stated in the claim application, are that the
deceased, during his lifetime, was employed as the driver of a truck bearing
no. HR-55-J-7315 owned by the employer. The truck was duly insured and
had a subsisting policy from 22.11.2016 to 21.11.2017 issued by the
insurance company. The insurance company also charged an additional
premium from the employer under the EC Act. It was claimed that on the
intervening night of 02.05.2017, the deceased met with an accident which
occurred out of and during the course of his employment. It was stated that
when the vehicle reached Fatehpur Beri , some unknown miscreants attacked
the deceased, while he was on duty. He ultimately succumbed to the injuries
sustained as a result of the attack, which led to the registration of DD No.
9A dated 03.05.2017. The post-mortem of the deceased was also conducted
at AIIMS Hospital. The claimants stated that, during his lifetime, the
deceased was drawing wages @ Rs.15,000/- per month plus @ Rs.200/- per
day as food allowance. It was also stated that the employer was aware of the
incident, however, failed to provide any compensation, and thus, was liable
to pay the penalty.
4. The employer as well as the insurance company appeared before the
learned Commissioner and contested the claim application. While the
employer denied its liability by stating that the death did not occur out of
and during the course of employment, the insurance company contended that
the incident was a case of murder and not a vehicular accident, and as such,
it was not liable to pay any compensation.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:25.05.2026
19:24:18
FAO Nos. 386/2019, 45/2020, & 281/2023 Page 3 of 10

5. Before this Court, learned counsel for the insurance company
contended that the employer-employee relationship between the parties has
not been conclusively established. Further, it was reiterated that there is no
eyewitness to the incident and the learned Commissioner failed to appreciate
that, it being a case of murder, no compensation is required to be paid.
6. Learned counsel for the employer submits that the learned
Commissioner erred in relying on the testimony of Satendra Kumar , who
was neither an eyewitness nor employed with the employer. Further, it was
submitted that his testimony would show that the body of the deceased was
found 100 meters away from the said truck.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants seeks enhancement of
compensation by contending that the learned Commissioner, while granting
compensation, took Rs.8000/- as the monthly wages of the employee and, by
referring to Section 26 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, submitted
that double the amount of the wages ought to have been considered.
Similarly, it was stated that while assessing the amount towards penalty,
interest should have been included.
8. Though the scope of an appeal filed under Section 30 of the EC Act is
limited, considering that all three parties have assailed the impugned order,
this Court proceeds to examine the case.
9. The First Information Report (FIR) about the incident came to be
recorded vide DD No. 9A at the instance of the employer, who had made the
PCR call from his own phone. In the said call, it was stated that his
employee/driver had been murdered.
10. The issue as to whether there was any employee-employer
relationship stands answered in the affirmative by the impugned order. In
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:25.05.2026
19:24:18
FAO Nos. 386/2019, 45/2020, & 281/2023 Page 4 of 10

this regard, it is sufficient to note that besides examining the wife of the
deceased, the claimants also examined one Satendra Kumar , who
categorically deposed that he was employed by the same employer as a
driver for about three months and, on his reference, the deceased came to be
employed with the employer. The witness further deposed that although he
had left the job 20 days prior to the incident, information about the incident
was given to him by none other than the employer.
11. The director of the employer himself, in his cross-examination,
admitted that the deceased was employed by him as a driver of vehicle no.
HR-55-J-7315. He admitted to informing the police authorities about the
incident.
12. In light of the above evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the finding of the learned Commissioner on the said issue cannot be said
to be perverse in any manner.
13. Coming to the second issue, it has been contended that the incident is
a simpliciter case of murder and not an accident. To press the said
submission, learned counsel for the insurance company has referred to the
factum of the body being found away from the truck.
14. The witness Satendra Kumar has deposed that when he reached the
place of the incident, he found the body of the deceased lying at a distance
of about 100 metres from truck no. HR-55-J-7315. The director of the
employer has stated that the truck was found parked about 50-60 feet away
from the body of the deceased.
15. In order to determine this issue, the Court needs to examine if there is
any connection between the incident and the employment.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:25.05.2026
19:24:18
FAO Nos. 386/2019, 45/2020, & 281/2023 Page 5 of 10

16. Learned counsel for the insurance company has placed heavy reliance
on the decision of Rita Devi & Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. &
1
Anr. , wherein it was held as under:
“ 10. The question, therefore is, can a murder be an accident in any
given case? There is no doubt that ‘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. In our opinion, 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. ”

17. Learned counsel for the employer has additionally placed reliance on
the judgments of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in National
2
Insurance Company, Ramgarh Vs. Kulsum Khatoon & Anr. and National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hiramain Devi; Peshkar Kherwar; Sadhu
3
Charan Sahu to contend that the murder of the deceased in the present case
cannot be termed „accidental‟; the EC Act is intended to cover only
unintentional accidents and not intentional acts which are homicidal in
nature.
18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has referred to
the judgments delivered by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in ICICI
4
Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Smt Sonia & Ors. and M/s.

1
(2000) 5 SCC 113
2
M.A. No. 83 of 2011, decided on 13.01.2022.
3
2022 LawSuit (Jhar) 916
4
2014 SCC OnLine Del 707
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:25.05.2026
19:24:18
FAO Nos. 386/2019, 45/2020, & 281/2023 Page 6 of 10

5
Adecco India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shriram & Anr. , as well as the decision by this
6
Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors. , to
rebut the said contentions.
19. In ICICI Lombard ( supra ), this Court dealt with a case wherein the
driver of a vehicle was assaulted by persons while driving the concerned
vehicle at the behest of his employer, and ultimately succumbed to the same.
This Court held that the expression “arising out of and in the course of
employment” does not mean that death has to occur only because of the
driving of the vehicle. It was held that the said expression is wide enough to
take into its fold the death of an employee who is attacked while performing
the duties of a driver.
20. It is also deemed apposite to refer to the decision of this Court in
Kamla Devi ( supra ), the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:
“ 5. With regard to the question of liability of insurance company in
case of murder, it is deemed expedient to advert to the decision in Shrimati
Bhagubai v. The General Manager, Central Railway reported as 1954
SCC OnLine Bom 10, where a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
analysed circumstances under which a causal connection between
employment of the deceased and his accident is established. It was
observed as follows:—
‘…Now, it is clear that there must be a causal connection
between the accident and the employment in order that the Court
can say that the accident arose out of the employment of the
deceased. It is equally clear that the cause contemplated is the
proximate cause and not any remote cause. The authorities have
clearly laid down that if the employee in the course of his
employment has to be in a particular place and by reason of his
being in that particular place he has to face a peril and the
accident is caused by reason of that peril which he has to face,
then a causal connection is established between the accident and
the employment. It is now well settled that the fact that the
employee shares that peril with other members of the public is an

5
2017 SCC OnLine Del 8343
6
2023 SCC OnLine Del 1139
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:25.05.2026
19:24:18
FAO Nos. 386/2019, 45/2020, & 281/2023 Page 7 of 10

irrelevant consideration. It is true that the peril which he faces
must not be something personal to him; the peril must be incidental
to his employment. It is also clear that he must not by his own act
add to the peril or extend the peril. But if the peril which he faces
has nothing to do with his own action or his own conduct, but it is
a peril which would have been faced by any other employee or any
other member of the public, then if the accident arises out of such
peril, a causal connection is established between the employment
and the accident. In this particular case what is established is that
the employee while in the course of his employment found himself
in a spot where he was assaulted and stabbed to death. He was in
the place where he was murdered by reason of his employment. He
would have been safely in his bed but for the fact that he had to
join duty, and he had to pass this spot in order to join his duty.
Therefore the connection between the employment and the accident
is established. There is no evidence in this case that the employee
in any way added to the peril. There is no evidence that he was
stabbed because the assailant wanted to stab him and not anybody
else.
× × ×
Once the peril is established it is for the employer then to
establish either that the peril was brought about by the employee
himself, or that the peril was not a general peril but a peril
personal to the employee. It is because of this that the authorities
have made it clear that the causal connection between the accident
and the employment which the applicant has to establish is not a
remote or ultimate connection but a connection which is only
proximate. Once that proximate connection is established the
applicant has discharged the burden, and in this case the
proximate connection between the employment and the injury is the
fact that the deceased was at a particular spot in the course of his
employment and it was at that spot that he was assaulted and done
to death.’
6. To a similar extent is the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashwani Kumar reported as
2014 SCC OnLine Del 281, where it was opined that if a driver is
murdered when he is driving a truck during the course of his employment,
then there exists the necessary connection of the death arising out of and
in the course of employment.
7. In the present case, respondent No. 3 admitted to having
employed the deceased. He also supported the fact that the deceased was
coming back taking the goods from Delhi to Narwana under his
instructions when the incident occurred. Accordingly, the first ground
raised is rejected as being devoid of merit. ”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:25.05.2026
19:24:18
FAO Nos. 386/2019, 45/2020, & 281/2023 Page 8 of 10

21. To decide the present issue, a gainful reference may also be made to
the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in United India Insurance
7
Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh & Ors. , wherein a driver on duty was killed in a
sudden altercation while handing over charge of his vehicle. The insurer
inter alia contended that the deceased had died due to injuries suffered in a
quarrel and not due to an accident arising out of the use of the insured
vehicle; it was further contended that the murder could not be said to be an
accident for the purpose of granting compensation under the EC Act. The
Coordinate Bench, after taking note of Rita Devi ( supra ) as well as
judgments of nine other High Courts, rejected the said contentions and held
the death of the deceased to be an accidental death. The Court observed that
no evidence had been led by the appellant to suggest that the dominant
purpose of the assailant was to kill the deceased. It was further observed that
there was no evidence that the deceased had in any way added to the peril or
contemplated his death. Consequently, the incident was held to be an
unforeseen and untoward happening, and therefore, an accidental death.
22. In light of the aforesaid backdrop of facts and law, this Court is of the
considered view that, in the absence of any credible evidence establishing
that the death of the deceased was murder simpliciter , the incident was
rightly considered as murder accident by the learned Commissioner. Thus,
the decision to award compensation cannot be said to be perverse or based
on vague findings.
23. Coming to the issue of penalty, learned counsel for the insurance
company has placed reliance on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rekha
8 9
Chaudhary and Ors. and Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi & Ors. to

7
2017 SCC OnLine Del 9853
8
2026 SCC OnLine SC 294
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:25.05.2026
19:24:18
FAO Nos. 386/2019, 45/2020, & 281/2023 Page 9 of 10

submit that if any additional amount of compensation is awarded by the
learned Commissioner under the EC Act by way of penalty, the same would
be the liability of the insured-employer and not of the insurance company.
However, in the present facts, the employer alone has been directed to pay
the penalty amount.
24. Coming now to the appeal filed by the claimants, it has been prayed
that the workman ought to have been awarded compensation at double the
amount of wages in light of Section 26 of the Motor Transport Workers Act,
1961. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the claimants
conceded that no evidence was brought on record to show that the deceased
was working beyond eight working hours; as such, the contention is
unsubstantiated.
25. On the aspect of interest being included while awarding penalty, the
discretion exercised by the learned Commissioner in awarding 50% of the
compensation towards penalty is held to be just and proper.
26. Consequently, the impugned order is upheld and the challenges by the
insurance company and the employer fail. For the reasons noted above, the
appeal seeking enhancement preferred by the heirs of the deceased is also
meritless and rejected.
27. The present appeals, along with the pending applications, are disposed
of in the aforesaid terms.


(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
MAY 25, 2026
nb


9
(1997) 8 SCC 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:25.05.2026
19:24:18
FAO Nos. 386/2019, 45/2020, & 281/2023 Page 10 of 10