Murder of driver during employment constitutes an accidental death arising out of and in the course of employment.

The deceased, Satyaveer Singh, was employed as a truck driver by M/s C.S. Concrete Pvt. Ltd. (the employer).

On the night of 02.05.2017, while on duty, he was attacked and killed by unknown miscreants; his body was found 50–100 feet away from the parked vehicle.

The legal heirs filed a claim under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (EC Act).

The Commissioner awarded compensation to be paid by the Insurance Company and a 50% penalty to be paid by the employer.

All three parties—the Insurer (contesting the nature of the accident), the Employer (contesting the relationship), and the Claimants (seeking enhancement)—appealed the order.

1. Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the deceased and the employer at the time of the incident.

2. Whether the murder of the driver during the course of his employment qualifies as an "accident" arising out of employment under the EC Act.

3. Whether the claimants are entitled to double wages under Section 26 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, for the purpose of compensation.

The Court applied the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, specifically regarding liability for accidents "arising out of and in the course of employment."

It relied on the "Proximate Cause" and "Causal Connection" doctrines established in Shrimati Bhagubai v. Central Railway and Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., which distinguishes "murder simpliciter" (intentional personal vendetta) from "accidental murder" (incidental to employment/felony).

It further referenced ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sonia to affirm that "arising out of employment" includes risks faced by being in a particular place for duty.

Regarding the employer-employee relationship, the Court noted that the employer himself made the PCR call identifying the deceased as his driver and admitted the same during cross-examination.

On the core issue of murder as an "accident," the Court reasoned that since the deceased was at a specific spot solely due to his employment duties and there was no evidence of personal enmity or that he "added to the peril," the death had a proximate connection to his work.

Following Rita Devi, the Court held that in the absence of evidence showing the dominant intention was to kill the specific individual for personal reasons, the event is an "untoward happening" and thus an accidental death.

Regarding enhancement, the Court found the claim for double wages under the Motor Transport Workers Act unsubstantiated as no evidence of overtime work was produced.

It held that: (i) the employer-employee relationship was proved; (ii) the murder constituted an "accidental death" arising out of employment, making the Insurer liable for compensation; and (iii) the employer is solely liable for the penalty.

The claims for enhancement of compensation and interest on penalty were rejected as meritless.