JUDGMENT : HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J. Though this appeal is listed for orders today, with the consent of both the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2. The present appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 30(1) of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘E.C. Act’ for short) calling in question the judgment and award passed in E.C.A. No.6/2017 dated 14.09.2018 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge-Cum-M.A.C.T.-IV, Hosapete (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed. 3. Facts germane for disposal of this appeal are as under: 4. It is stated that the appellant was working as a driver in lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-02/AD-545 which is under the ownership of respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2-Insurance Company. It is stated that the appellant was receiving salary of Rs.15,000/- p.m. with batta of Rs.300/-per day and when this being the fact, on 25.02.2015 at about 12.30 p.m. when the appellant was on duty as a driver in the said lorry and as per the direction of respondent No.1-owner and when he was proceeding on NH-13 road near Balaji Daba, M.M.Halli village of Hosapete taluk he lost control over the lorry due to unavoidable circumstances as the gear lever of the truck got stuck and hit the opposite lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-06/C-5105 and as a result of the said accident the appellant sustained severe multiple crush injuries on his right leg resulting in amputation. Therefore, for having sustained injuries in the said accident, the appellant has filed claim petition before the Trial Court but the Trial Court has dismissed the claim petition of the appellant on the ground that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the appellant himself. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that dismissal of the claim petition of the appellant is not correct and is unsustainable. The learned counsel further submitted that due to circumstances beyond his control, the lorry gear lever got stuck and resulted in the accident. Therefore, he submits that there is no wilful disobedience on the part of the appellant but it is on account of unavoidable circumstances and due to mechanical failure of the truck as stated above the accident was caused and which accident occurred in the course of employment under respondent No.1-owner. Therefore, he submits that there is no wilful disobedience on the part of the appellant but it is on account of unavoidable circumstances and due to mechanical failure of the truck as stated above the accident was caused and which accident occurred in the course of employment under respondent No.1-owner. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for compensation under E.C. Act. But in this regard without appreciating the scope and ambit of E.C. Act, the Trial Court has dismissed the claim petition which is not correct and therefore prays for allowing the appeal by granting compensation. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company submitted that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the appellant himself and therefore the appellant is not entitled for compensation under the provisions of the E.C. Act. Therefore, it is rightly observed by the Trial Court that the appellant is not entitled for any compensation and dismissed the claim petition which calls for no interference and therefore prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. Upon hearing the submissions and perusing the records, the following substantial question of law arises for consideration: Whether the employer is liable to pay the compensation or the insurer as the case may be, where an employee had sustained bodily injuries or death due to the negligence other than the conditions enumerated in the proviso to Section 3(1) of E.C. Act which has occurred arising out of and in the course of employment? 8. In the present case, the Trial Court has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellant has driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and came to the conclusion that there is self negligence on the part of the appellant himself. The appellant has filed claim petition by invoking Section 22 of the E.C. Act for claiming compensation. Section 22 of E.C. Act prescribes form of application for seeking compensation where an accident occurs in respect of which liability to pay compensation under the E.C. Act arises and therefore claim petition is to be filed before the Commissioner and which can be considered subject to the provisions of E.C. Act. Section 22 of E.C. Act prescribes form of application for seeking compensation where an accident occurs in respect of which liability to pay compensation under the E.C. Act arises and therefore claim petition is to be filed before the Commissioner and which can be considered subject to the provisions of E.C. Act. The word accident is not defined in E.C. Act and in this regard Section 3 of E.C. Act prescribes employer’s liability for compensation if there is any personal injury is caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, the employer shall be liable for giving compensation subject to the provisions stated therein. For easy reference, Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of E.C. Act is reproduced hereunder: “3. Employer's liability for compensation. — (1) If personal injury is caused to an employee 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 employee for a period 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 employee having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the wilful disobedience of the employee to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of employees, or (iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the employee of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of employee.” 9. E.C. Act is framed for providing social security and is a welfare legislation to protect the workman during hard times. Therefore, the provisions of E.C. Act shall not be interpreted too narrowly so as to debar the workman from seeking compensation. The intention of the Legislature is to make the employer responsible to compensate the loss caused by the injuries or death on account of act which arises out of and in the course of employment. Therefore, the provisions of E.C. Act shall not be interpreted too narrowly so as to debar the workman from seeking compensation. The intention of the Legislature is to make the employer responsible to compensate the loss caused by the injuries or death on account of act which arises out of and in the course of employment. Therefore, if the language employed in Section 3 of E.C. Act is liberally appreciated and interpreted, it becomes apparent that there is no stipulation that if there is negligence on the part of the workman then he is not entitled for seeking compensation. 10. The liability of the employer’s to pay compensation is governed by the conditions enumerated in the proviso. As per the proviso (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of E.C. Act the employer is not liable to pay the compensation where the employee is found that he is under the influence of liquor or prohibited drugs or there is wilful disobedience of the employee to an order expressly given or to a rule expressly framed for the purpose of securing the safety of the employee or where there is wilful removal or disregard by the employee of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of employee. Therefore, where any of these three conditions are proved as stipulated in proviso (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of E.C. Act, then the employer is not liable to pay the compensation. 11. In the present case, it is not the case of respondents that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol or drug or there is wilful disobedience or the appellant failed to protect himself with safety measures. In the present case the accident was caused by circumstance beyond the control of the appellant as the gear lever of the truck got stuck when the accident was happened. Even though the facts and circumstances, as construed from the records available, there is no negligence on the part of the appellant in causing the accident, such negligence cannot debar the appellant from seeking compensation under E.C. Act. There is always difference between ‘negligence’ and ‘wilful disobedience’. The negligence may be attributed depending on the degree of care or the standard of care to be taken. 12. There is always difference between ‘negligence’ and ‘wilful disobedience’. The negligence may be attributed depending on the degree of care or the standard of care to be taken. 12. In Black’s Law Dictionary the meaning of terminology ‘negligence’ and ‘obedience’ are stated as below: “Negligence: 1. The failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm, except for conduct that is intentionally, wantonly, or willfully disregardful of others’ rights. The term denotes culpable carelessness. The Roman-law equivalents are culpa and neglegentia, as contrasted with dolus (wrongful intention). Also termed actionable negligence; ordinary negligence; simple negligence. 2. A tort grounded in this failure, usu. expressed in terms of the following elements: duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. “Negligence in law ranges from inadvertence that is hardly more than accidental to sinful disregard of the safety of others.” “During the first half of the nineteenth century, negligence began to gain recognition as a separate and independent basis of tort liability. Its rise coincided in a marked degree with the industrial Revolution; and it very probably was stimulated by the rapid increase in the number of accidents caused by industrial machinery, and in particular by the invention of railways. It was greatly encouraged by the disintegration of the old forms of action, and the disappearance of the distinction between direct and indirect injuries, found in trespass and case. Intentional injuries, whether direct or indirect, began to be grouped as a distinct field of liability, and negligence remained as the main basis for unintended torts. Negligence thus developed into the dominant cause of action for accidental injury in this nation today. “Negligence is a matter of risk-that is to say, of recognizable danger of injury. In most instances, it is caused by heedlessness or inadvertence, by which the negligent party is unaware of the results which may follow from his act. But it may also arise where the negligent party has considered the possible consequences carefully, and has exercised his own best judgment. In most instances, it is caused by heedlessness or inadvertence, by which the negligent party is unaware of the results which may follow from his act. But it may also arise where the negligent party has considered the possible consequences carefully, and has exercised his own best judgment. The almost universal use of the phrase ‘due care’ to describe conduct which is not negligent should not obscure the fact that the essence of negligence is not necessarily the absence of solicitude for those who may be adversely affected by one’s actions but is instead behavior which should be recognized as involving unreasonable danger to others.” “Obedience: Compliance with a law, command, or authority.” The word disobedience is opposite to meaning of obedience above described. 13. In Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary the meaning of terminology ‘wilful disobedience’ is stated as below: “Wilful disobedience: The term wilful disobedience would mean that it is something more than a mere violation of rule. Mere negligence of the worker cannot be regarded as ‘wilful disobedience’ by the workman to an order expressly given. The ‘wilful disobedience’ is the term which is primary and basic ingredient of such an offence which is apparent from the definition itself.” 14. If the accident has occurred due to the negligence, it cannot be said that there is wilful disobedience. Wilful disobedience is having animus in the mind and on his own will disobeying the thing, but negligence is a thing that happen suddenly and without any premeditation. Whereas, wilful disobedience is having an element of premeditation. Therefore, this makes difference between these two aspects, ‘negligence’ and ‘wilful disobedience’. In Section 3 of E.C. Act where there is wilful disobedience on the part of the employee, it debars him from seeking compensation from the employer. But, the negligence aspect is not articulated in the said provision. A thing to be happened due to the negligence is one’s beyond control but a happening is said to be caused which is due to wilful disobedience there is an intention in the mind for causing disobedience on his own volition. Therefore, when there being difference between ‘negligence’ and ‘wilful disobedience’ then if any accident has happened due to the negligence it cannot absolve the employer from making payment of compensation to its employee under the provisions of E.C. Act. Therefore, when there being difference between ‘negligence’ and ‘wilful disobedience’ then if any accident has happened due to the negligence it cannot absolve the employer from making payment of compensation to its employee under the provisions of E.C. Act. But in the present case as discussed above there is no element of proof that there is wilful disobedience on the part of the appellant employee. At the most, it can be said that there might be negligence on the part of the appellant but also the circumstance stated for causing the accident is that the gear lever was stuck therefore the accident has happened. Therefore, under these circumstances the claim petition filed by the appellant under Section 22 of Workmen Compensation Act is very well maintainable as there is no element proved so as to attract the exceptions for denying compensation and as enumerated in Section 3 of E.C. Act. Therefore, in the decisions reported in 2012 ACJ 1051 in the case of Louis Martis Vs. Louis Korrea and Another and in the case of Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lakshmana and Others reported in 2014 ACJ 1030 referred by the Trial Court while dismissing the petition this aspect is not considered. Therefore on a proper reading of said Section and upon making liberal interpretation of the said provision and considering the aspect that the Act is social welfare legislation, as per Section 3 of E.C. Act except the provisions stated in Section 3 of E.C. Act, on all other events where accident happens arising out of and in the course of employment then employer is liable for payment of compensation or the insurer where there is a contract of insurance between the employer and the insurer. Furthermore, in the judgment of Division Bench of this Court referred by the Trial Court (stated supra), the claim petition is filed under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 while deciding the claim petitions, the aspect of negligence is to be considered where a petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. Whereas, statutory provision is made even in case of award of compensation negligence aspect cannot be considered which is articulated in Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. Under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 while deciding the claim petitions, the aspect of negligence is to be considered where a petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. Whereas, statutory provision is made even in case of award of compensation negligence aspect cannot be considered which is articulated in Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the observations made in the said judgment in Louis Martis (supra) is without making proper interpretation of the provisions of the E.C. Act. Therefore the above stated judgment is per incuriam so far as observations made that as per provisions of the E.C. Act if there is negligence aspect on the part of the employee then the employer is not liable for payment of compensation. This portion of observations is said to be per incuriam. 15. Therefore in that view of matter, the decision of Division Bench of this Court referred by the Trial Court cannot be held applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, the claim petition filed by the appellant for claiming compensation on the ground of injuries sustained in the road traffic accident when he was working as an employee being a driver while driving the lorry is very well maintainable. 16. Mere negligence of the workman cannot be regarded as wilful disobedience by the workman. “wilful disobedience” presupposes a conscious action, whereas a thing said to be occurred by negligence cannot presuppose a conscious action if an accident is occurred in a spur of moment. Therefore, there is always difference between these two words ‘wilful disobedience ‘and ‘negligence’. The wilful disobedience is the term which is primary and basic ingredient of such an offence which is apparent from the definition itself. 17. As stated above, willfulness is an act done intentionally and designedly, whereas negligence is without having any intention or an element of design. Therefore, in these contexts the Legislation has not articulated the word negligence in the proviso to Section 3(1) of E.C. Act. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in the proviso to Section 3(1) of E.C. Act only attract debaring the employer/insurer from payment of compensation. But if the accident occurs due to the negligence which is not found in the said proviso to Section 3(1) of E.C. Act under such circumstances, the employer/insurer are liable to pay the compensation as the case may be. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered. But if the accident occurs due to the negligence which is not found in the said proviso to Section 3(1) of E.C. Act under such circumstances, the employer/insurer are liable to pay the compensation as the case may be. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered. 18. Therefore, with these reasons, the judgment and award passed by the Trial Court in rejecting the claim petition filed by the appellant is liable to be set aside. Thus, for determination of quantum of compensation, the matter requires to be remitted to the Trial Court for making quantification of compensation. Therefore by holding that the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant before the Trial Court under Section 22 of Workmen Compensation Act is maintainable, only so far as making quantification of compensation, the case is remitted to the Trial Court for consideration. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeal is allowed. Judgment and award passed in E.C.A. No.6/2017 dated 14.09.2018 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge-Cum-M.A.C.T.-IV, Hosapete is hereby set aside. For the reasons stated above, the matter requires to be remitted to the Trial Court for considering the case on determining the quantum of compensation. No order as to costs. Both the parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence, if any, if they so wish.