UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PHILO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Short question arising for consideration in this appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short "the Act") is whether the killing of a workman while he was in the course of his employment, by an unknown person, can be considered as death paused as a result of an accident arising out of his employment?

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts relevant are thus: The second opposite party in W. C. C. No. 85 of 1992 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner) Ernakulam is the appellant in this appeal. The application filed was for compensation for the death caused to one Mr. Thomas, husband of the first respondent and the father of respondents 2 to 4 in this appeal. According to the applicants the deceased Thomas was the driver of Tourist Taxi Car KRV 5250 owned by the first opposite party. On June 16, 1991, the deceased was engaged by the first opposite party to drive the taxi car with passengers for hire. Accordingly the deceased went to Valliyoor, near Kuttalam, taking the tourists in the taxi car. He did not return after the tour and it was reported that he was killed and the car was stolen by somebody. In the application, the monthly income and age of the deceased were shown as Rs, 2,000/- and 45 respectively. A total amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-was claimed as compensation. The first opposite party admitted that the deceased was the driver of his tourist taxi and that he was paying a monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/- to the deceased. There was also no dispute regarding the age of the deceased. It was submitted that the taxi car has been duly insured with the second opposite party and the policy was in force at the time of the death of the driver. The appellant as second opposite party denied the allegation that deceased Thomas has sustained fatal injuries by the accident arising out of and in course of his employment. It was contended that the incident is not an accident and that it was a cold blooded murder and that the murder by a third party cannot be an accident and hence it was not liable to pay any compensation. After taking evidence and hearing the arguments, the! Commissioner rejected the contentions taken by the appellant and awarded a sum of Rs. 67,776/- as compensation to the claimants together with interest from June 16, 1991 onwards. It is aggrieved by the said order that the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) IN the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has not pursued the contentions taken by the appellant as second opposite party before the Commissioner to the effect that the incident in question is not an accident and even if it is an accident it is not one which arose in the course of the employment. We think that the learned counsel for the appellant was justified in not pursuing them in the light of the decision of this Court reported in Varkeyachan v. Thomman (1979-I-LLJ-373) where a Division Bench of this Court has held that "the term 'accident' for the purpose of the law relating to compensation for personal injuries sustained by workmen and the employer's liability in that behalf, includes any injury which is not designed by the workman himself and it is of no consequence that the injury was designed and intended by the person inflicting the same. " In the light of the admitted fact that the deceased was engaged as a driver by the first opposite party and that he was killed while he was in the course of performing his duties as a driver, there may not be any justification in law to contend that the accident has not occurred in the course of his employment.