IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.696/2008 The Oriental Assurance Co. Vs. Indira Devi & Ors. 09.04.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Rishipal Agrawal, for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the deceased was found admittedly murdered and therefore it cannot be said that it is a case of accident and as such the Insurance Company cannot be held liable under the Workmen Compensation Act 1923. So far as the liability under the workmen Compensation Act is concerned the injury must have been caused in an accident arising out of in the course of employment. As per the case of the claimant and the finding which has been given by the learned Commissioner the deceased Krishna Murari was a driver employed by the owner of the vehicle Smt. Manbhari Devi the respondent herein who was the registered owner of Taxi bearing Registration No.RJ14-T-8314, (the insured) which was attached with one Vishitha Travel Agency in Jaipur under an arrangement with the insured. As per the FIR it was alleged that on 17.5.2005 the deceased Krishna Murari took the Taxi with the passengers, who had contacted Vishitha Tours Agency, to Sikrai in District Dausa. Thereafter only the dead body of the deceased Krishna Murari who was employed as a driver was found in a Well after having been murdered and the taxi car had been stolen by the said passengers who had hired the car through Vishitha Travel Agency with whom the employer had an arrangement by attaching the said vehicle with it. From the above it is clear that the deceased was an employee, employed by the respondent No.7 Smt. Manbhari as a driver of the Taxi bearing Registration No.RJ14T 8314 attached with the travel agency. The said vehicle had been attached at the instance of the employer with Vishitha Travel Agency. The travel agency had a contract with the employer and the employee (deceased) proceeded with the Taxi in furtherance of the said contract in the course of his employment when he was murdered and the Taxi Car stolen by the passengers. The deceased was being paid Rs.6,000/- as per the evidence of the claimant by the owner of the vehicle as wages. Thus there is no doubt that at the time of the murder of the deceased, the deceased was in the employment of the employer the insured and met with his death during the course of his employment while carrying the passengers on the job assigned to him by the Travel Agency with whom the employer had a contract. The question therefore is whether the murder of the employee in the course of his employment is an “accident” for the purpose of the Act. The Act does no define accident. In the judicial dictionary second edition by Justice L.P. Singh and P.K. Majumdar accident has been define to mean “some unforeseen event misfortune, loss, act or omission as is not the result of any negligence or misconduct by the party applying for relief.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyothi Ademma Vs. Plant Engineer Nellore in para 7 of the reported in 1961 NAC 1045 in para 7 of the report has held as follows: “7. The expression “accident” means an untoward mishap which is not expected or designed. “Injury” means physiological injury. In “Fenton Vs. Thorley & Co. Ltd. (1903) AC 448, it was observed that the expression “accident” is used in the popular and ordinary sense of the word as denoting an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed. The above view of Lord Macnaghten was qualified by the speech of Lord Haldane A.C. In Trim Joint District School Board of Management Vs. Kelly, (1914) AC 676.” In the above judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the decision of the Privy Council Fenton Vs. J. Thorley & Co. Ltd. In the said judgment of the Privy Council 1903 AC page 448 it has been laid down after quoting from Hensey Vs. White “if a workman in the reasonable performance of his duties sustains a physiological injury as the result of the work he is engaged in” this is accidental injury in sense of the statute. Applying the above it is clear that the deceased while discharging his duties in the course of his employment proceed with the Taxi Car with the passengers and on the way was murdered by the passengers who allegedly also stole the vehicle. He had no role to play in the aforesaid act which was unforeseen and unexpected so far as the deceased was concerned and which a person or ordinary prudence could not have anticipated. Therefore, in the present case which arises out of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 so far as liability of the employer who is the insured and the corresponding liability of the appellant insurance company is concerned, in the facts and circumstances mentioned above the learned Commissioner has rightly held that the death of the deceased employee as a result of his murder which occurred during the course of his employment arose out of and in the course of his employment is an accident within the scope of Section 3 of the Act of 1923. In the facts and circumstances, I find no good ground to interfere with award passed by the learned Commissioner. This appeal and the stay application are accordingly dismissed. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS