# RASHIDA HAROON KUPURADE v. DIV. MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS

- **Citation:** [2010] 2 S.C.R. 443
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2010-02-08
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1638 of 2010
- **Bench:** Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rashida-haroon-kupurade-v-div-manager-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-26615
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923:
A
B
s. 3 -
Vehicular accident - Death or victim after six
C
months - Compensation award passed by Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation holding the insurer liable set aside
by High Court holding that the employer was liable and not
the insurer - HELD: High Court has committed an error in
holding that notwithstanding the fact that there was no
D
connection with the accident and the death of the workman,
the owner of the vehicle in question was still liable to pay
compensation Linder the provisions of the Act- In view of s.3,
compensation would be payable by employer only if the injury
is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the
E
course of his employment - There has to be an accident in
order to attract the provisions of s. 3 and such accident must
have occurred in the course of the workman's employment....,.
In the instant case, there is no nexus between the accident
and the death of the workman since the accident had occurred . F
six months prior to his death. In such circumstances, the order·
of the High Court is set aside as far as the observations
relating to the employer are concerned - Insurance - Liability
of insurer.
·

## Text

[2010] 2 S.C.R. 443
RASHIDA HAROON KUPURADE
v.
DIV. MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. &
ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1638 of 2010)
FEBRUARY 8, 2010
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923:
A
B
s. 3 -
Vehicular accident - Death or victim after six
C
months - Compensation award passed by Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation holding the insurer liable set aside
by High Court holding that the employer was liable and not
the insurer - HELD: High Court has committed an error in
holding that notwithstanding the fact that there was no
D
connection with the accident and the death of the workman,
the owner of the vehicle in question was still liable to pay
compensation Linder the provisions of the Act- In view of s.3,
compensation would be payable by employer only if the injury
is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the
E
course of his employment - There has to be an accident in
order to attract the provisions of s. 3 and such accident must
have occurred in the course of the workman's employment....,.
In the instant case, there is no nexus between the accident
and the death of the workman since the accident had occurred . F
six months prior to his death. In such circumstances, the order·
of the High Court is set aside as far as the observations
relating to the employer are concerned - Insurance - Liability
of insurer.
·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal· No.
1638 of 2010.
From the Judgment & Order dated 4.8.2005 of the High
443
G
H
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 2 S.C.R.
A Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in MFA No. 3340 of 2004
(WC).
B
c
R.S. Hedge, Chandra Prakash, Rahul Tyagi, J.K. Nayyar,
Ashwani· Garg, Komal Kishore R. Joshi, P.P. Singh for the
Appellant.
Ramesh Chandra Mishra1 Dr. Meera Agarwal for the
Respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered
1. Delay condoned.
2, Leave granted. ·.
ORDER
.
3. Despite notice having been served on the respondent
· Nos. 2 to 5, n-~ne of them have chosen to appear to oppose
D· the appeal, when it is taken up for consideration. Learned
-counselbas, however, entered appearance on behalf of the
resp~ndenf No.1/ihsurance company.
· 4. The appeal is directed against an order passed by the
Karnataka High Court in Misc.First Appeal-N6~3340 of 2004,
E under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for setting aside the
order dated 31st December, 2003, passed by the
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-I,
Belgaum, in Case No.WCA/FSR/1/03. By the said judgment,
F the appeal of the insurance company challenging the
compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation was partly allowed, upon the finding that since
the deceased workman had died of natural causes, namely, a
heart attack, the insurance company could not be fastened with
G the liability of making payment of the said award since there
was no nexus between the death of the workman and the
accident, which had occurred about six months prior to his
death. However, while disposing of the appeal, the High Court
observed that at best, the relationship of employer and
H employee as between the deceased and the insured not being
\
\
RASHIDA HAROON KUPURADE v. DIV. MANAGER, 445
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
in dispute and the death having occurred during and in the
A
course of employment, liability could be fastened on the
employer and not the insurance company. Leave was,
therefore, given to the claimants to recover the compensation
amount from the owner of the vehicle. This appeal has been
filed by the owner of the vehicle against the said observations
B
and directions given by the High Court.
5. It. has been submitted on behalf of the appellant/owner
of the vehicle that the provisions of Section 3 of the Act had
been wrongly interpreted by the High Court in observing that
the liability for the death of the workman, even if it had no
C
connection with the accident·in question, was with the owner
of the vehicle. It has been submitted by Mr. Hegde that Section
3, which sets out the employer's liability for compensation
indicates in Sub-Section (1) that if personal injuries are caused
to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of
D
his employment, his 'employer shall be liable to pay.·
_ compensation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 11,
which deals with workmen's C'ompensation. Certain exceptions
have been carved out in the proviso to the effect that there had
to be some link between the accident and the death of the
E
employee in order to attract the provisions of Section 3 as far
as the owner of the vehicle is concerned.
6. On behalf of the respondent/insurance company, it has
been sought to be reiterated that since there was no nexus
between the accident and the death of the employee, the High
Court had correctly held that the liability of making payment
under the Award was not with the insurance company.
7. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of
F
the respective parties, we are inclined to agree with the
G
submissions made on behalf of the appellant that the High Court
has committed an error in holding that notwithstanding the fact
that there was.no connection with the accident and the death
of the workman, the owner of the vehicle in question was still
liable to pay compensation under the provisions of the Act.
H
A
B
446
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010) 2 S.C.R.
8. In order to better appreciate the submissions made on
behalf of the parties, Section 3(1) of the above Act is extracted
hereinbelow:-
"3.Employer's liability for compensation.-(1 ) .... If
personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising
out of and in the course of his employment, his employer
shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the
provisions of this Chapter: ............... "
9. It will be clear from the wording of the above Section
c that compensation would be payable only if the injury is caused
to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of
his employment. There has to be an accident in order to attract
the provisions of Section 3 and such accident must have
occurred in the course of the workman's employment. As
o indicated hereinabove, in the instant case, there is no nexus
between the accident and the death of the workman since the
accident had occurred six months prior to his death.
10. In such circumstances, we are unable to sustain the
order of the High Court and we have no option but to set aside
E the same as far as the observations relating to the appellant
herein are concerned.
11. The appeal, therefore, succeeds. The observations
made in the impugned judgment regarding the liability of the
F appellant herein to make payment in respect of the Award
passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation are
set aside. The other parts of the judgment are upheld. The
appeal is allowed'.
G
H
12. There will be. no orders as to costs.
13. This order will not prevent the heirs of the deceased
workman fror)'l taking recourse to any other legal remedy, if
available to them.
R.P.
Appeal allowed.