Murder incidental to an employment-related incident constitutes an accident covered by the employer’s insurance.

The appellants, being claimants in two separate proceedings under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, challenged orders of the Commissioner directing the employer to pay compensation for the deaths of Kaptan Singh, employed as a helper, and Sahab Singh, employed as a driver.

On 28 February 2014, Sahab Singh was driving vehicle no. DL-ILN-8239 from Karala to Puth Khurd when it collided with a Skoda car. Thereafter, occupants of the Skoda car allegedly fired at Sahab Singh, resulting in his death; Kaptan Singh was also shot dead during the same incident.

The employer admitted the employment, salaries, occurrence, and that the vehicle was insured under a policy valid from 31 July 2013 to 30 July 2014.

The insurer denied liability, contending that the deaths resulted from murder simpliciter and were not compensable.

During the proceedings, the employer died, and the Commissioner nevertheless directed the employer to satisfy the awards.

Whether the deaths of Sahab Singh and Kaptan Singh, caused by firing following the collision involving the vehicle being used in employment, constituted an “accident arising out of and in the course of employment” under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

Whether the liability to pay the awarded compensation could be fastened upon the insurance company rather than the employer.

The appeals were considered under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, concerning appeals against orders of the Commissioner.

The Court applied the distinction drawn in Rita Devi & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 1930, between murder simpliciter and accidental murder: where the dominant intention is to kill a particular person, the act is not an accident; however, where the murder is not originally intended and occurs incidentally in furtherance of another felonious act, it may constitute an accident arising out of employment.

The Court also relied on the principles in Challis v. London and South Western Railway Co., Nisbet v. Rayne & Burn, and Board of Management of Trim Joint District School v. Kelly, recognising that a deliberate felonious act by a third party may nevertheless be an accident from the standpoint of the employee if it arises out of the risks or circumstances of employment.

The Court treated the collision as the initial event and the subsequent firing as an act arising in the course of that incident, rather than as a pre-planned killing of either employee.

Applying Rita Devi, the Court held that the dominant or original intention of the offenders was not shown to be the killing of Sahab Singh or Kaptan Singh; their deaths occurred after the collision and in the ensuing course of events.

Since both deceased persons were admitted employees and were travelling or working in connection with the insured vehicle, the deaths were sufficiently connected with their employment to qualify as accidental deaths under the Act.

The existence of a valid insurance policy was admitted, and the insurer’s defence that the incident was murder simpliciter failed because the murders were accidental in the legal sense recognised by the Supreme Court.

Consequently, the insurer, rather than the employer, was directed to discharge the compensation liability.

The impugned orders were modified to the extent that respondent no. 2, the insurance company, was directed to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants.

Both appeals were disposed of in those terms.