Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : C.B.Bhargava
R.B.MOONDRA AND CO. - Appellant
Versus
BHANWARI - Respondent
Civil Misc. First Appeal 42 Of 1967
Decided On : 04/22/1969
{'KEYWORD': 'Workmen Compensation Act', 'SUBJECT': 'Accident arising out of and in the course of employment', 'ACT SECTION LIST': 'Section 3(1), Section 14, Section 21'}
Fact of the Case:
Deceased, a truck driver, was asked to check a leaking petrol tank. He entered the tank, which had been partly filled with water, and lit a matchstick to detect the leak, causing a fire that resulted in his death.
Finding of the Court:
The accident arose out of and in the course of the deceased's employment. The act of lighting the matchstick, though negligent, was within the scope of his duty to detect the leak. The insurance company was not liable for compensation as the case did not fall under Section 14 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the deceased's employment. 2. Whether the insurance company was liable for compensation. 3. Whether the widow's remarriage barred her from claiming compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The accident arose out of and in the course of the deceased's employment because he was acting within the scope of his duty to detect the leak, even though his act of lighting the matchstick was negligent. 2. The insurance company was not liable for compensation because the case did not fall under Section 14 of the Act, which deals with the liability of insurers when the employer becomes insolvent. 3. The widow's remarriage did not bar her from claiming compensation because there is no such provision in the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
C. B. BHARGAVA, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal by the employer is directed against the judgment of the Workmen compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur dated 15th May, 1967 allowing Rupees 7000 compensation to the widow of deceased Gordhansingh.
( 2 ) THE material facts which have given rise to this appeal may he shortly stated thus. The deceased was employed as a driver on a truck of the appellant which used to carry petrol tank. The deceased reported to the appellant that the tank was leaking upon which the appellant got the tank partly filled with water at night and ordered the deceased to check it on the next morning. On the next morning i. e. , on 10th November, 1963, the deceased entered the tank to see from where it leaked and lighted a match stick as a result of which it caught fire and the deceased received burns due to which he succumbed subsequently.
( 3 ) THE evidence produced on behalf of respondent No. 1 was that the match box was supplied to the deceased by the appellant. But this fact was denied by the appellant in his deposition and in the opinion of the learned Commissioner it was doubtful that the appellant had given the match box to the deceased though no reasons are given for the aforesaid conclusion.
( 4 ) THE learned Commissioner on the evidence found that the deceased was a workman, that the accident arose in the course of and out of his employment, that the deceased was getting Rs. 150 p. m. as wages, that the widow was not debarred from claiming compensation on account of her remarriage and that the compensation could not be awarded against the insurance company in these proceedings.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contends: 1. that in the present case the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the deceaseds employment and it occurred due to the added peril that is the lighting of match stick within the petrol tank by him. 2. that the Commissioner ought to have held the insurance company i. e. , respondent No. 2 also liable for compensation, 3. that after remarriage respondent No. 1 was not entitled to claim compensation because she no longer remained a dependent.
( 6 ) I will take up these contentions one by one. As for the first contention it is urged by the learned counsel that the deceased was employed as a driver at the appellants truck and it was no part of his duty to clean the tank or to detect the point of leakage. Even if it be held that the accident arose in the course of employment it cannot be held that it arose out of it because the deceased by lighting the match stick within the tank committed an act which no prudent person would have done in the circumstances and the said act was not necessary for the purpose of employment. Thus it was a case where the deceased by his own conduct brought about the accident. Reliance is placed on Gouri Kinkar Bhakat v. Radha Kishen Cotton Mills, AIR 1933 Cal 220; Devidayal Ralyaram v. Secy. of state, AIR 1937 Sind 288; Bhurangya Coal Co. , Ltd. v. Sahebjan Mian, AIR 1956 pat 299; Barnes v. Nunnery Colliery Co. Ltd. , 1912 AC 44 and Stephen v. Copper, 1929 AC 570.
( 7 ) IN order to appreciate the argument it would be useful to reproduce the relevant parts of Section 3 of the Workmens Compensation Act (hereinafter called the Act.)
"3 (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, 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 rule expressly framed, for the purpose o
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
