SANTOKH SINGH Vs. ACCHRU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The basic question that is required to be addressed in this appeal is whether 'murder' of deceased in this case amounted to "accident during the course of employment?" Present appeal has been filed by the original claimants, who are the legal heirs of deceased Jagjeevan Singh @ Jaggi, challenging the dismissal of their claim petition for compensation by learned Ex-officio Commissioner for Employee's Compensation and Civil Judge Senior Division, Hingoli in F. A. No. 03 of 2015 dt. 05-01-2018. [Parties are addressed by their nomenclature before the Trial Court].

(2.) Petitioners are the parents of deceased Jaggi. Jaggi was serving as cleaner on truck bearing No. PB13-AB-9943, owned by respondent No. 1. He was aged 22 years. One Abdul Gafur @ Salim Salauddin was working as driver on the said truck. The said truck was proceeding from Malerkotla towards Andhra Pradesh. The said driver as well as Jaggi were the occupants of the truck. When they had reached near Balapur, deceased was hit by a hard substance on his head by driver Abdul. Deceased expired on the spot. Said driver had thrown the dead body on the side of the road and then fled away from there. Police had investigated the matter, after the incident was reported. Initially accidental death was reported. However, after it was revealed that it is a case of 'murder', the driver has been prosecuted. Petitioners contended that the said accident had taken place during the course and arising out of employment with respondent No. 1. The insurance policy taken by respondent No. 1 from respondent No. 2 covers risk of cleaner. Jaggi was earning Rs.6,000/- p. m. Hence, petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.6,45,840/- with interest.

(3.) Matter proceeded ex-parte against respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 has resisted the claim. All the averments in the petition have been denied specifically. The relation between deceased and respondent No. 1 as employee and employer has been denied. It is stated that deceased was travelling from the truck as fare paid passenger, whose risk was not covered under the policy. It has been contended that since deceased was murdered, it can not be said to be an 'accident' that too during the course of employment.