Employer's liability to pay compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act is determined by whether the personal injury was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, as per Section 3 of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Nelson Sailo, J. - Heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, the learned Government Advocate for the appellants. As for the respondent applicant, he is represented by Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng.

2. This is an appeal against the Judgment & Award dated 12.12.2017, passed by the Commissioner under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (Compensation Act) in WC Case No. 15/2015 preferred by the State appellants. By the said Judgment & Award, the respondent applicant was awarded a sum of Rs. 2,93,819/- alongwith 12% interest per annum from the date of the accident as compensation. It is seen from the records that prior to filing the instant appeal, the appellants have already deposited the final award of Rs. 4,49,543/- (inclusive of interest) before the Commissioner, as mandated by Section 30 of the Compensation Act.

3. Facts of the case as projected by the respondent applicant is that on 25.07.2013, the applicant was detailed to repair electric line of College Veng Feeder at Arhuan, Salem Veng, while he was on top of the electric pole, the electric current passed through the line and as a result, he was caught by the electric current. He got severe burnt injuries on the both sides of his hand as well as in his legs. The injuries sustained by him has left him with 40% functional disability causing great hardship in the discharge of his work as a Muster Roll employee under the Power & Electricity Department. As such, the applicant has claimed for maximum compensation as admissible in law for having suffered 40% functional disability.

4. The Power & Electricity Department as opposite party, contested the claim by filing written statement stating that the claim application suffered from non-joinder and misjoinder of parties and that the applicant being an unskilled Muster Roll laborer under the Department, he was not an employee as defined under the Compensation Act. The opposite party further stated that although the claimant could not perform his duty properly, he was not discharged from the Department and was being paid his wages regularly. As such, the claim application should be dismissed.

5. In support of his claim, the respondent applicant examined himself and the case IO as claimants' witness, while the opposite party examined Smt. Lalthakimi, Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Power & Electricity Department as defence witness. The Commissioner framed 3 (three) issues namely; (1) Whether the deceased is a Workmen within the meaning of the Act? (2) Whether the accident arose out of or in the course of the deceased's employment? (3) Whether the amount of compensation claimed is due, or any part of that amount? (4) Whether the Opposite Party is liable to pay such compensation as is due?. After the parties led their respective evidence, the Commissioner decided all the issues in favour of the claimant and awarded compensation to the respondent claimant as already indicated hereinabove.

6. In order to consider the appeal of the appellants, this Court has formulated the following substantial question of law; (1) Is a Muster Roll employee, an employee under the Employee's Compensation Act? (2) Is the Judgment of the Commissioner perverse in as much as the same is rendered without framing of issue in respect of whether the respondent suffered loss of income when the same is denied by the appellant in their written statements? (3) Is the finding of the Commissioner regarding employer and employee relationship between the appellant and the respondent perverse in as much as the same is not based on evidence?

7. The learned counsels for the rival parties at the outset has drawn the attention of this Court to the Judgment & Order dated 02.08.2019 passed in MFA No. 1/2019 (The Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Tourism Department, Aizawl Vs. Smt. Sita Karki), wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that Muster Roll employees are covered by the scheme of the Compensation Act and therefore, they will be entitled to compensation as pr