JUDGMENT :

The petitioners, in the instant appeal, are aggrieved against the dismissal of their claim petition by the learned Commissioner Employee’s Compensation, Barsar, District Hamirpur vide order dated 28.3.2012.

Parties hereinafter are referred to as they were before the learned Commissioner.

2. The claimants filed a petition under Section 22 of the Employee Compensation Act. They pleaded that Naresh Kumar was their son. He was working as a Conductor on bus No. HP-21-5530. The bus was owned by respondent No. 2-A (Ramesh Chand). Naresh Kumar was employed by respondent No. 2-A as conductor on the bus and was being paid a monthly salary of Rs. 2500/- along with daily diet money of Rs. 100/- etc. In the course of his employment with respondent No. 2-A, Naresh Kumar sustained grievous burn injuries on 1.8.2005. After the accident, he was brought to Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur and further referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, where he remained under treatment till 7.11.2005 when he finally succumbed to his injuries. Compensation of Rupees five lacs or more was prayed by the parents of deceased Naresh Kumar.

3. On considering the entire material available on record, learned Commissioner held that Naresh Kumar died in the course of his employment as Conductor on bus bearing No. HP-21-5530. Learned Commissioner, however, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the accident causing Naresh Kumar’s death had occurred because of deceased’s own negligence. It will be apt to extract the relevant part of the finding of learned Commissioner in this regard :

“In view of the Provisions contained in proviso (b) (iii) to Section 3 of the Act ibid, the employer cannot be held liable to compensate for the personal injuries/death of the deceased, which injury/death occurs due to willful disregard to the safety precautions or is the result of his (deceased) own negligence. Hence, in view of the fact that the death of deceased occurred in the accident, which had resulted due to his own negligence, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have no cause of action to file the present petition.”

4. In the instant appeal filed by the claimants against dismissal of their claim petition, the substantial question of law, which has been urged, is framed as under :

Whether under the provisions of Section 3(1) proviso (b)(iii) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, the compensation is not payable in case of death of an employee as a result of an accident arising out of or in the course of his employment but due to his own willful disregard to the safety precautions or because of his own negligence?

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the above substantial question of law. It will be appropriate to first extract relevant portion of Section 3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act :

“3. Employer's liability for compensation.- (1) If personal injury is caused to a 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.”

6. From a plain reading of the above extracted portion of the Section, it becomes clear that the employer will not be liable to pay compensation in cases of injurie