A driver’s murder during employment can constitute an accident arising out of motor vehicle use.

On 4 July 2014, Ramesh was driving a car owned by the sixth respondent and insured by the appellant when he was murdered by three persons, who also took his mobile phone and ₹3,000.

A criminal case was registered for offences under Sections 302, 379 and 201 IPC.

Ramesh’s dependants claimed compensation.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded ₹20,86,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The insurer appealed, contending, among other things, that the death resulted from a planned murder rather than an accident and that there was no employer–employee relationship.

The claimants maintained that Ramesh had been engaged by the car’s owner and was murdered during the course of that employment.

Whether Ramesh’s murder while driving the insured car could be treated as an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, entitling his dependants to compensation

Whether the evidence supported the claimants’ case that Ramesh was driving the owner’s car in the course of his employment

Whether the Tribunal’s compensation award warranted appellate interference

Under Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Company Limited, 2000 ACJ 801 (SC), a murder may be treated as an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle where the death is sufficiently connected with that use; the Supreme Court’s conclusion, as quoted by the High Court, was that the murder in that case arose from the use of a motor vehicle.

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The insurer also relied on Section 167 of that Act, but the High Court did not separately expound or apply that provision in its reasoning.

The Court found that the sixth respondent owned the car and had engaged Ramesh to drive it.

Ramesh was driving the car when he was murdered and robbed; the insurer produced no evidence to disprove the claimants’ account.

Applying Rita Devi, the Court accepted the Tribunal’s conclusion that the killing was connected with the use of the vehicle and occurred during the course of employment.

It also found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation as just and reasonable.

It made no order as to costs in the appeal and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.