Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 160 (JK)

J. P. Industries Ltd. , Kishtwar v. Mohan Lal

2005-05-31

NIRMAL SINGH

body2005
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen™s Compensation Act, Assistant Labour Commissioner Kishtwar on 31.5.2000 who allowed the claim petition of respondents and awarded Rs. 1,77,400 on account of death of Chotu Ram. 2. Respondents Mohan Lal and others are the legal heirs of the deceased Chotu Ram. It was pleaded that while he was working with the appellant at work site Hasti Kishtwar on 13.8.1997, the deceased all of sudden felt severe headache and was admitted to SDH Kishtwar where he was declared dead on 15.8.1997. It was pleaded that at the time of death, the deceased was 25 years of age and was earning Rs. 1410/- per month. 3. The appellant contested the claim petition and filed objections pleading that the applicants are not entitled to any compensation from the appellant as the deceased was not under its employment. At the time of illness, when the deceased was admitted in the Hospital, the Applicants had never approached them for negotiation. 4. On the pleadings of the parties the Commissioner framed the following issues:- 1) Whether deceased Chattu Ram was in the employment of non-applicant No.1 and 2 on 13th August 1997 where he felt sudden severe headache and subsequently died in Hospital on 15.8.1997.? OPP 2) What was the age and wages of the deceased at the time of his untimely death? OPP. 3) Relief.� 5. After recording the evidence of the parties, learned Commissioner decided both the issues in favour of respondents and held that the deceased had suffered a sudden attack during the course of employment of the appellant. It was further held that at that time of his death the deceased was 25 years of age and was receiving Rs. 1410/- per month as wages and, accordingly, awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,77,400/- , aggrieved by which the present appeal has been preferred. 6. Mr. Kanwal Chopora, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence on record that the deceased fell ill during the employment of the appellant-company. He contended that the deceased absented himself for 2/3 days before his illness and after that he fell ill and was admitted in the Hospital where he breathed his last. He further contended that the respondents had not given any information to the appellant, therefore, the appellants are not liable to pay the compensation. He contended that the deceased absented himself for 2/3 days before his illness and after that he fell ill and was admitted in the Hospital where he breathed his last. He further contended that the respondents had not given any information to the appellant, therefore, the appellants are not liable to pay the compensation. He further contended that the deceased was working with the Sub-contractor. In support of his contention learned counsel also cited the law reported in case titled Satyabadi Nayak vs. Damei Khilla & Ors. ( 1991 ACJ 211). 7. The only point which has to be determined in this appeal is whether the deceased received injuries during the course of employment of the appellant-company. Section 3 of the Workmen™s Compensation Act deals with the employer™s liability for compensation and reads as under:- 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: Provided that the employer shall not be so liable- (a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period of exceeding (three) days™ (b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death, or permanent total disablement caused by an accident which is directly attributable to- (i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii)the willful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or (iii)the willful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen.� 8. Perusal of above section shows that for claiming the compensation under the above section it must be proved that there must be an injury, the injury should have been received in an accident and thirdly the injury should have been received during the course of employment. To prove that the deceased had received injuries during the course of employment the respondents have examined PWs Shashi Kumar, Rattan Singh and Payar Singh. 9. To prove that the deceased had received injuries during the course of employment the respondents have examined PWs Shashi Kumar, Rattan Singh and Payar Singh. 9. From the evidence of claimant witnesses, Shashi Kumar, Rattan Lal and Payar Singh it is clear that deceased was on duty when all of a sudden he felt uneasiness on 13.8.1997 at Hasti and was accordingly taken to Sub District Hospital, Kishtwar, where he died. 10. Where a workmen receives injuries, external or internal, during the course of his employment, due to strenuous work, the employer is liable to pay compensation under Section 3 of the Act to the legal heirs of the deceased or to the injured workmen. In Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Vs. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak, 1969 ACJ, 422, the Apex Court has held as under:- The words in the course of the employment� means in the course of the work which the workmen is employed to do and which is incidental top it. The words arising out of employment� are understood to mean that during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workmen would not otherwise have suffered�. In other words there must be a casual relationship between the accident and the employment. The expression arising out of employment is again not confined to the mere nature of the employment. The expression applies to employment as such to its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents, If by reason of any of those factors the workman is brought within the zone of special danger the injury would be one which arises ˜ out of the employment™. To put it differently if the accident had occurred of a risk which is an incident of the employment the clain for compensation must succeed, unless of course the workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act.� 11. In the case in hand, as per the un-rebutted evidence, it has been established that the deceased was working in the tunnel where Gases generate and the Company had not provided any mask to the labour. In the case in hand, as per the un-rebutted evidence, it has been established that the deceased was working in the tunnel where Gases generate and the Company had not provided any mask to the labour. So from the evidence of the respondents, it has been proved that the deceased felt uneasiness on 13.8.1997 and died in SDH Kishtwar, the deceased had died during the course of his employment, due to internal injuries received by him. Therefore, the learned Commissioner, after taking into consideration the statement of PW Payar Singh, Sub-Contractor, that the deceased was getting Rs. 45/- per day, has rightly assessed the compensation, for which the appellant is liable to make the payment. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.