Driver’s Murder While On Duty Is An ‘Accidental Death’ Under Employees’ Compensation Act If No Personal Motive Exists: Delhi High Court

"In the absence of any credible evidence establishing that the death of the deceased was murder simpliciter, the incident was rightly considered as murder accident... if the cause of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act, then such murder is an accidental murder." Delhi High Court, in a judgment, held that the murder of an employee while performing their professional duties constitutes an "accidental death" under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, provided there is no evidence of a personal motive behind the killing.

A bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed that if an employee is required to be at a particular spot by virtue of their employment and faces a peril at that location, a causal connection is established between the accident and the employment.

The appeals arose from a claim filed by the legal heirs of Satyaveer Singh, a truck driver who was attacked and killed by unknown miscreants while on duty at Fatehpur Beri on the night of May 2, 2017. The Commissioner (EC Act) allowed the claim, directing National Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay the compensation and the employer, M/s C.S. Concrete Pvt. Ltd., to pay the penalty. Both the insurance company and the employer challenged the liability, while the claimants sought an enhancement of the compensation amount.

The primary question before the court was whether the murder of a driver during the course of employment qualifies as an "accident" under the EC Act or remains a "murder simpliciter" excluded from compensation. The court also examined whether a valid employer-employee relationship existed and whether the insurance company could be held liable for the penalty amount.

Court Explains Distinction Between Murder Simpliciter and Accidental Murder

The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Rita Devi & Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to distinguish between two types of homicidal deaths. It noted that if the dominant intention of the felonious act is to kill a specific person, it is a "murder simpliciter" which does not qualify as an accident.

"Murder Simpliciter" Vs "Accidental Murder"

However, if the act of murder was not originally intended but occurred in furtherance of another felonious act, it is classified as an "accidental murder." The court noted that the difference depends on the proximity of the cause and whether the employment brought the deceased into contact with the risk.

Causal Connection Established By Employee’s Presence At Duty Spot

The bench emphasized that the expression "arising out of and in the course of employment" is wide enough to include attacks on employees performing their duties. It observed that the deceased driver was at the spot of the incident solely because he had to join his duty and pass that location.

Presence At Duty Spot Establishes Causal Link To Incident

The court found that there was no evidence to suggest the assailant specifically wanted to kill the deceased due to a personal grudge. By being at the spot in the course of his employment, the driver faced a peril incidental to his job, thereby establishing the necessary causal connection between the injury and the employment.

"Arising Out Of Employment" Not Restricted To Driving Accidents

Citing ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt Sonia, the court reiterated that death doesn't have to occur only due to the mechanical driving of the vehicle. Any attack suffered while performing the duties of a driver falls within the protective fold of the Employees' Compensation Act.

Liability For Penalty Rest Strictly With The Employer

Addressing the insurance company's challenge regarding the penalty, the court referred to the precedent in Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi. It affirmed that while the insurer is liable for the compensation amount and interest, any additional penalty for default under the EC Act is the sole liability of the employer.

Insurance Company Not Liable For Statutory Penalty Under EC Act

In the present case, the Commissioner had already directed only the employer to pay the penalty amount. The High Court found this direction to be legally sound, noting that the insurance policy's coverage of additional premiums under the EC Act does not typically extend to statutory penalties incurred by the employer's delay or default.

Claim For Enhancement Based On Motor Transport Workers Act Rejected

The claimants had sought double wages for compensation calculation by invoking Section 26 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. However, the court rejected this plea, noting that the counsel for the claimants conceded there was no evidence on record to show the deceased was working beyond the statutory eight-hour limit.

No Evidence Of Overtime Work To Justify Wage Enhancement

The court upheld the Commissioner's decision to use Rs. 8,000 as the monthly wage for calculation. It further held that the Commissioner’s discretion in awarding 50% of the compensation as a penalty was just and proper under the circumstances of the case.

Dismissing all three appeals, the High Court upheld the Commissioner's order in its entirety. It concluded that since no evidence established the death as a "murder simpliciter," the incident was rightly treated as an "accidental murder" arising out of employment, making the legal heirs entitled to compensation.

Date of Decision: May 25, 2026