H. RANGAVITTALACHAR, J.

( 1 ) THE Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal against the award of the Commissioner, workmen's Compensation, Davanagere.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1, Rathnamma hereinafter referred to as 'claimant' filed a claim application under Workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'the Act') before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Davanagere, contending her son kotrappa, hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased' for convenience, was working as a coolie under respondent No. 2, on a monthly salary of Rs. 600. On 26. 11. 1991 the deceased after loading manure on the tractor-trailer belonging to the appellant was travelling in the said vehicle. On account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, the deceased fell from the tractor, sustained injuries and later succumbed to it. The death occurred in the course of employment and hence prayed for awarding a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation against the employer.

( 3 ) THE Commissioner after notice and enquiry has taken the age of the deceased as 12 years and adopting a multiplier corresponding to the age 16, in Schedule IV has awarded a sum of Rs. 72,401 as compensation; since the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant and admittedly the policy was in force, has directed the insurance company to pay the same.

( 4 ) THIS order is under challenge by the insurance company.

( 5 ) MR. S. P. Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that under the scheme of the Act, the compensation is payable only to the employees who suffer employment injuries or die in an accident if they are or were aged 16 years and above. But the employees who are/were below the age of 16 years, no compensation is payable; learned counsel submits that admittedly the injured workman in this case was of 12 years when the accident occurred, i. e. , below the age of 16 years. Therefore, Commissioner was not justified in awarding any compensation in this case. To sustain the said argument learned counsel relied on the entries in Schedule IV of the Workmen's compensation Act, which provides a Table for payment of compensation to employees who are only 16 years and above and the multiplicand factor is relatable only to the age of the injured workman at the time of the accident.

( 6 ) IN my opinion this contention is not well-founded.

( 7 ) WORKMEN's Compensation Act is a social welfare legislation, the concept of compensation to be awarded is based on the doctrine of 'strict liability'. The interpretation of the provisions of the Act, rules, Schedule, should be made so as to advance the objects of the Act.

( 8 ) SECTION 3 of the Act fixes on every 'employer' the liability to pay compensation to his workman, in respect of any injury suffered or death caused to the latter during the course of employment. Relevant portion of section 3 is extracted for ready reference:"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 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 wilful 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 wilful 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. "'workman' has been defined under section 2 (1) (n) as follows:" 'workman' means an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document