JUDGMENT
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.
1. The vehicle in question is the official Jeep belonging to Respondent No. 2, One Maktumsha Sayyed is a’ driver of the Jeep, employed under Respondent No. 2, The third respondent is the Senior Officer working under the second respondent entitled to use the Jeep for official purpose.
2. On 8.2.93 the third respondent went to Kurundawad village by official Jeep. The Jeep was driven by the deceased. The third respondent visited the village for personal work for recovery of his personal loans from the- villagers. There was commotion and altercation. The villagers beat the third respondent and his son, The driver was also beaten resulting in his death. The wife of the deceased made claim before the W.C. Commissioner seeking compensation,. The eerrenissloner directed the second respondent, insurer of the Jeep to pay Rs. 227079/- and directed the second respondent is directed to pay Rs. 1000/- towards funeral expenses. The insurer, is in appeal seeking avoidance of the liability on the ground that the death has not attributable to the use of the motor vehicle.
3. The following is. the substantial question of law;
i) Whether the death of the driver has any legal relation with us of motor vehicle to fasten the Utility on the insurer?
4. The second, respondent has placed necessary evidence to show that the third respondent misused the official jeep for his personal purpose. A departmental action is initiated against the third respondent for mis-use of the official Jeep,
5. It is argued by the counsel for the insurer that the use of the vehicle is not in any way contributed for the cause of the death of the driver and also that the death is not “in the course of and out of the employment;
6. The facts narrated above clearly disclose that the “use of the vehicle” is neither a direct cause nor’ a contributory faster for the occurrence of the incident, resulting in death. It is only a matter of coincidence that the incident takes place when the third respondent and the deceased to go the village by a Jeep. Therefore, the award made against the insurer is bad in law.
7. The facts, however, discloses that the vehicle is an official Jeep, The deceased is an official driver. The third respondent is the superior Officer entitled to use the Jeep for official purpose, When the driver is sumrtoned by the third respondent, to drive the vehicle, it is expected of the driver as a part of his duty discipline to obey the command without demur. It will be not in the legal propriety of the driver to question the purpose of use of the vehicle and purpose of travel. Any such conduct on the part of the driver would amount to insubordination. It may be a case of misuse of vehicle by the official superior, but as for as driver is concerned, he will be discharging his duty in the course of his employment. In the contextual situation, the death of the driver is deemed to be in the course of employment. The attack on the driver by the rabid mob in the event of any mishap or misconduct is an essential hazard attending the nature of job of a driver. Therefore, the incident of death is deemed to be both in the course of and out of employment.
8. Since the use of the vehicle has no rational bearing on the occurrence of the incident. The insurer does not incur any legal liability to pay compensation. The award made against the appellant insurer is set aside. But the incident of death is in the course of and out of employment. In exercise of powers under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC, it is directed that the employer-second respondent-shall pay the compensation awarded to the petitioners.
9. Appeal is allowed as indicated above.