RASHIDA HAROON KUPURADEversusDIV. MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

                 [2010] 2 S.C.R. 443


             RASHIDA HAROON KUPURADE                          A
                             v.
  DIV. MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. &
                         ORS.
           (Civil Appeal No. 1638 of 2010)
                                                              B
                    FEBRUARY 8, 2010
     [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

    Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923:
      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.                                             ·
                                                              G
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal· No.
1638 of 2010.
    From the Judgment & Order dated 4.8.2005 of the High

                           443                                H
    444      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in MFA No. 3340 of 2004
  (WC).
        R.S. Hedge, Chandra Prakash, Rahul Tyagi, J.K. Nayyar,
    Ashwani· Garg, Komal Kishore R. Joshi, P.P. Singh for the
    Appellant.
B
        Ramesh Chandra Mishra 1 Dr. Meera Agarwal for the
    Respondents.
          The Order of the Court was delivered
                                 ORDER
c         1. Delay condoned.
          2, Leave granted. ·.
    .   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       F
 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
 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
    446        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010) 2 S.C.R.


A       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
B
           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'.
           12. There will be. no orders as to costs.
G
         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.
H