Back
Karnataka High Court
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.E.K.R.T.C., BELLARY division, BELLARY - Appellant
Versus
Sangamma - Respondent
Decided On : 06-15-04
M.F.A. : 1138 of 2003
INTERPRETATION OF STATUES
Interpretation of beneficial legislation -Interpretation of beneficial legislation - How to be made.
[P. Vishwanatha Shetty & K. Bhakthavatsala, JJ]: It is well settled that while interpreting the beneficial legislation, in the absence of the language employed in the legislation being clear and unambiguous and does not give scope for views more than one, the courts will have to interpret the legislation or the provisions of the legislation keeping in mind the object and purpose of legislation.
Cases Referred: AIR 1964 SC 193; MFA No. 2422 of 1992, dd. on 31-3-1997; 1985 ACJ 299; 1969 II LLJ 812; 1994 I LLJ 433; MFA No. 1658 of 2003, dd. on 7-10-2003; AIR 1994 SC 1631.
Accident
WORDS AND PHRASES - Accident- The word accident can be understood in the context as an event or incident taking place unexpectedly or suddenly. In fact, this view gets support from the meaning given to the word accident in Chambers 21st Century Dictionary wherein the meaning of the word accident has been stated as: "An unexpected event which causes damage or harm; something which happens without planning or intention; chance managed it by accident."
Accident during course of employment
WORKMEN S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 - Section 3(1) -Accident during course of employment -Bus conductor suffering heart attack while on duty -Should be termed as injury occurred on account of accident arising out and in course of employment.
[P. Vishwanatha Shetty & K. Bhakthavatsala, JJ]: If a Workman suffers a personal injury unexpectedly or suddenly and such personal injury suffered by the workman can be attributed to the work undertaken by the workman or has some connection to the nature of the duties discharged by a workman, such an injury suffered can be treated as a result of the accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.
Cases Referred: AIR 1964 SC 193; MFA No. 2422 of 1992, dd. on 31-3-1997; 1985 ACJ 299; 1969 II LLJ 812; 1994 I LLJ 433; MFA No. 1658 of 2003, dd. on 7-10-2003; AIR 1994 SC 1631.
Compensation
WORKMEN S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 - Section 4A- Compensation -Payment and satisfaction of award -Whether the amount deposited while preferring appeal and the interest accrued on it amounts to satisfaction of the ward? It cannot be -The award has to be satisfied within one month from the date on which it is passed.
[P. Vishwanatha Shetty & K. Bhakthavatsala, JJ]: However, one other question that would arise for consideration is, since the appellant has deposited the compensation awarded before this Court while filing the appeal, whether the deposit and the interest it has earned can be treated as the appellant satisfying the ward passed by the Commissioner as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant? It cannot be Under Section 4-A of the Act, the appellant is required to satisfy the award within one month. Though the award was passed by the Commissioner on 17th August 2002, the appeal was filed on 10th February 2003 with an application praying to condone the delay of 130 days caused in filing the appeal. The sum of Rs. 4,09,869/- came to be deposited by the appellant in terms of the award passed by the Commissioner, only in the month of May 2003 and on account of the pendency of the appeal, the respondents were denied of the benefit of the compensation awarded by the Commissioner. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that from the date of the appellant depositing the amount before the Court it must be held that the appellant has satisfied the award passed by the Commissioner and as such, is not liable to pay interest on the compensation awarded.
( 1 ) THE appellant in this appeal is a Divisional Controller of north East Karnataka Road Trans. Corpn. In this appeal the appellant has called in question the correctness of the order dated 17. 8. 2002 made in W. C. A. C. R. No. 25 of 2001 by the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'), Gulbarga Division, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,94,120 (rupees three lakh ninety four thousand one hundred and twenty) by way of compensation to respondent Nos. 1 to 6 on account of death of one Revanasiddappa (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman'), who was working as a conductor in the appellant corporation. The respondent No. 1 is the wife of the workman, the respondent No. 2 is the mother and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are his children.
( 2 ) THE respondents had made a claim before the Commissioner under section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking compensation from the appellant on the ground that the workman had died in an accident that has occurred in the course of employment under the appellant. According to the respondents, while the workman was working at Chittapur under the appellant as a conductor in the vehicle belonging to the appellant, on 19. 1. 2001 while he was plying on the route Tuljapur to Chittapur, he developed chest pain; and when the same was informed to the driver of the bus, the driver stopped the bus at naladurg Bus Stand and admitted him to the Ashwini Nursing Home which is close to Naladurg Bus Stand and he died in the hospital on account of heart attack. It is the case of the respondents that on the date of death the workman was 35 years of age and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 4,731 (rupees four thousand seven hundred and thirty-one) and all the respondents were entirely depending upon his income for their livelihood. However, the appellant resisted the claim of the respondents, inter alia, contending that the workman did not die on account of the personal injury caused to him in an accident that had arisen out of and in the course of the employment. According to the stand taken by the appellant, the death on account of heart attack taking place in the course of the employment cannot be treated as an accident that takes place in the course of employment to attract section 3 of the Act. However, the Commissioner on the basis of the materials on record, has found that the workman died on account of heart attack, which he suffered ,in the course of his employment as a conductor of the vehicle belonging to the appellant.
( 3 ) MRS. H. R. Renuka, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, challenging the correctness of the impugned order submitted that the Commissioner has erred in law taking the view that heart attack suffered by the workman while working as conductor in the vehicle belonging to the appellant can be construed as an injury suffered by him in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. According to learned counsel, the appellant will be liable to pay compensation if the workman had suffered any personal injury on account of any accident that has arisen in the course of his employment and the heart attack being a natural event that has taken place on account of physical unfit- ness or ailment of the workman, the death taking place on account of heart attack cannot be treated as an accident. She has further pointed out that there is no injury caused to the workman on account of any accident that has taken place in the course of his employment.
( 4 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Sajjanshetty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, strongly supporting the impugned order, pointed out that the word 'accident' employed in section 3 of the Act, keeping in mind the object of the legislature, must be interpreted as any untoward incident or any unexpected incident taking place during the course of employment. According to him, the workman suffered heart attack while he was travelli
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
