![Driver Murdered After Parking Car and Leaving Not Killed in Course of Employment, Compensation Denied: Supreme Court in Manika Paul v. New India Assurance [2026 INSC 1042]](/assets/images/article-criminal.svg)
Quick Answer: A car driver who parked his employer's car in the garage, handed over the keys and left, and was later found murdered, did not die "in the course of employment" under Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Supreme Court upheld the Tripura High Court's order setting aside the compensation award, holding that the Commissioner had relied on presumption rather than a legitimate inference from proved facts. Amounts already paid to the family will not be recovered.
In Manika Paul & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2026 INSC 1042), the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of a murdered driver's family and upheld the Tripura High Court's judgment setting aside an award of Rs. 3,22,855, holding that the claimants failed to prove that the death arose out of and in the course of employment under Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (paras 8, 13–14). A Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the Commissioner's finding rested on presumption, not on inference from proved facts, but directed that amounts already paid to the family shall not be recovered (paras 11, 14).
Status: Appeal dismissed; Tripura High Court's judgment dated 05.02.2015 in MFA (W/C) No. 17 of 2007 upheld; interim order vacated; no recovery of amounts already paid (para 14).
Headnote: Murder of Driver After Duty Hours and Employee Compensation
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 – Section 3(1) – Accident arising out of and in the course of employment – Murder of driver – Burden of proof on claimant – Inference versus presumption – Doctrine of notional extension – Hearsay – Appreciation of evidence – No recovery of amount paid.
Held: (i) Under Section 3(1), the claimant must prove that the injury was caused by an accident both arising out of and in the course of employment; these may be inferred from proved facts, but the Commissioner must not surmise, conjecture or guess (para 8).
(ii) The version that the driver parked the car in the garage at 9:30 p.m. came from the family's own FIR, claim petition and affidavit, so the non-examination of the owner's wife was of no consequence and the plea of hearsay failed (para 10).
(iii) The High Court's reasons for disbelieving the only contrary witness were based on the record and were not perverse; the Commissioner's finding rested on presumption (para 11).
(iv) Proof of employment, seizure of the car and recovery of the body near the hotel do not show that the driver was engaged in his employment when killed; notional extension depends on the facts of each case and did not apply (para 12).
(v) The High Court's view that the claimants failed to discharge the burden under Section 3(1) was plausible and called for no interference (para 13).
(paras 8–13)
Case Details: Manika Paul v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2026 INSC 1042)
Final Outcome: Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upheld; I.A. for deletion of deceased Appellant No. 3 allowed; amounts already paid not to be recovered; no order as to costs.
Case: Smt. Manika Paul & Ors. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1042
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 6909 of 2015
Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) – Non-Reportable
Date of Decision: 16 September 2026
Bench: Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sandeep Mehta (order; no named author)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Section 3(1), Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923; Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Impugned Order: High Court of Tripura at Agartala – judgment dated 05.02.2015 in MFA (W/C) No. 17 of 2007, setting aside the award dated 31.05.2007 of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, West Tripura, in T.S. (W/C) No. 48 of 2005 (para 1)
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- The burden of proving that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment lies on the claimant; inference is allowed from proved facts, but not surmise or guesswork (para 8).
- The car-parked-at-9:30-p.m. version came from the family's own FIR, claim petition and affidavit, so it was not hearsay and the owner's wife did not need to be examined (para 10).
- The High Court rightly disbelieved PW-2, the only contrary witness, on the basis of his own admissions; the Commissioner's award rested on presumption (para 11).
- Employment, seizure of the car and recovery of the body about 150 metres from the hotel do not establish that the driver was on duty when killed (para 12).
- The doctrine of notional extension did not apply, as the driver was not with the vehicle or on the employer's errand at the time (para 12).
- Appeal dismissed, but amounts paid or withdrawn under the award shall not be recovered from the family (para 14).
Brief Facts of the Case
The deceased, aged about 28, was employed as a driver of a car owned by one Babul Dey and insured with New India Assurance. On 17.11.2004, on the owner's instructions, he drove officials of a company staying at Rajdhani Hotel, Agartala, and did not return home that night (para 3).
The owner's wife told the deceased's wife at about 3:30 a.m. that he had left the car in the garage at about 9:30 p.m. and gone away. A missing report was lodged, and on 21.11.2004 his body was found in a drain about 150 metres from the hotel. A murder case was registered on his father's report (para 3).
The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, believed PW-2, who said he saw the deceased waiting with the car outside the hotel at about 10:30–10:50 p.m., presumed that the murder occurred in the course of employment and awarded Rs. 3,22,855 with 12% interest (para 4).
The Tripura High Court accepted that the deceased was employed, but disbelieved PW-2 and held that the day's employment had ended when the car was parked, and set aside the award. The family appealed. Appellant No. 3, the father, died during the appeal and was deleted (paras 2, 5).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the driver's death arose out of and in the course of his employment under Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (paras 8–9).
- Whether the High Court was right in disbelieving PW-2 and setting aside the Commissioner's award (paras 10–13).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Burden and standard (para 8): Relying on Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. v. Ibrahim Mohammad Issak, the Court held that both requirements of Section 3(1) must be met and the onus is on the claimant; the Commissioner may draw a legitimate inference from proved facts but must not surmise or guess.
No direct evidence (para 9): Employment was not in issue. The question was whether the deceased was on duty when he died; there was no direct evidence, and the circumstances and reasons for the murder remained unknown.
Parking version not hearsay (para 10): The version that the car was parked at 9:30 p.m. was recorded by the family itself in the FIR, the claim petition and the wife's affidavit, and in cross-examination she could not say whether her husband had been relieved from duty. DW-1 was not confronted with any contrary suggestion.
PW-2 rightly disbelieved (para 11): The High Court's reasons for rejecting PW-2 were based on the record and largely on his own admissions, and were not perverse.
Other circumstances insufficient (para 12): Proof of employment, seizure of the car and the location of the body show at most proximity, not a link with employment. The doctrine of notional extension from B.E.S.T. Undertaking v. Agnes depends on the facts, and the cases cited involved workmen who were with the vehicle or on the employer's errand.
Final Outcome and Directions
- I.A. No. 32034 of 2022 for deletion of Appellant No. 3 allowed (paras 2, 14).
- Appeal dismissed; the High Court's judgment dated 05.02.2015 in MFA (W/C) No. 17 of 2007 upheld (para 14).
- Interim order dated 03.07.2015 vacated (para 14).
- Any amount paid to or withdrawn by the appellants under the award dated 31.05.2007 shall not be recovered from them; no order as to costs (para 14).
Legal Principle Laid Down
Under Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the claimant must prove that the fatal injury arose both out of and in the course of employment. An inference may be drawn from proved facts, but a finding resting on presumption cannot stand. Mere proof of employment, proximity of the place of death to the place of work, or seizure of the employer's vehicle does not establish that the workman was on duty when killed, and the doctrine of notional extension applies only where the facts show the workman was engaged in or in connection with his employment at the time.
Precedents Relied Upon
- Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Private Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mohammad Issak, 1969 ACJ 419 – Relied upon – onus on claimant; inference permissible from proved facts but not surmise or conjecture. Discussed at paras 8, 11.
- General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay v. Agnes, AIR 1964 SC 193 – Distinguished – doctrine of notional extension depends on the facts of each case. Discussed at para 12.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 8: "Both requirements must be satisfied, and the onus is upon the claimant."
Para 9: "What, therefore, is required to be seen is whether the deceased was on duty when he met his death. There is no direct evidence on this aspect."
Para 11: "The finding of the Commissioner, on the other hand, rested on a presumption rather than on an inference legitimately drawn from proved facts, which is precisely what Ibrahim Mohammad Issak (supra) cautions against."
Para 12: "The seizure of the car of the owner in the investigation of the murder of its driver, by itself, does not indicate that the deceased was with the vehicle, or was attacked while driving or guarding it, when he was killed."
Para 13: "We are, thus, in agreement with the view taken by the High Court that the Appellants have failed to discharge the burden cast upon them under Section 3(1) of the Act."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For claimants and dependants: They must lead evidence showing the workman was on duty, with the vehicle or on the employer's errand, when the fatal injury occurred (paras 8, 12).
- For Employees' Compensation Commissioners: Awards must rest on inferences from proved facts, not on presumptions (paras 8, 11).
- For insurers and employers: Where the workman had ended his duty and left, a later unexplained murder is not compensable merely because of employment or proximity (paras 10, 12).
- For litigants: Even on dismissal, the Court may protect amounts already paid from recovery (para 14).
FAQs on Driver's Murder and Workmen's Compensation
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Manika Paul v. New India Assurance?
It dismissed the family's appeal and upheld the High Court's order setting aside the compensation award, holding that the death was not shown to arise in the course of employment (paras 13–14).
2. Why was the murder not treated as in the course of employment?
The family's own FIR and claim showed the driver had parked the car and left at about 9:30 p.m.; there was no proof he was on duty when killed (paras 9–10, 12).
3. What is the burden on a claimant under Section 3(1)?
The claimant must prove the accident arose both out of and in the course of employment; this may be inferred from proved facts but not presumed (para 8).
4. Did the doctrine of notional extension help the family?
No. It depends on the facts, and here the driver was not with the vehicle or on an errand for the employer at the relevant time (para 12).
5. Must the family repay the compensation already received?
No. The Court directed that any amount paid to or withdrawn by the appellants under the award shall not be recovered (para 14).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 1042, Manika Paul v. New India Assurance, Workmen's Compensation Act Section 3(1), employee compensation, arising out of and in the course of employment, murder of driver, notional extension, Mackinnon Mackenzie, Tripura High Court, Supreme Court non-reportable judgment
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – Manika Paul v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).