Deceased employee done to death due to stabbing by her husband.

1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is against the award of Rs. 52, 052 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai in W. C. No. 72 of 1992 under the Workmen's Compensation Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as against the claim for compensation for a sum of Rs. 76, 885.20. The compensation was claimed by the respondents, parents of the victim, who was working under the appellants-industrial co-operative society.

2. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows : Their daughter Panchavarnam, the deceased, received stab injuries from her husband during the course of her employment under the appellant and died on 22.4.1990. She was getting a monthly wages of Rs. 900 and was aged 27 years at the time of the death.

3. The appellant in its counter-statement stated as follows : The deceased was no doubt a worker working under the appellant, but her husband has murdered her after entering into the work place. The murder was due to his private motivation and cannot be construed as an employment injury. The death is not due to risk incidental to the work of the victim. It is not an accident. There was no casual connection between the employment and the occurrence, which resulted in her death. It is only due to private enmity between her and her husband. The deceased was not getting a monthly wage of Rs. 900. The allegation that her age was 27 year is disputed.

4. After referring to several decisions, the Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was caused by an accident arising out of an in the course of her employment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the death of the deceased was not at all due to an accident and that even assuming it was due to an accident, it cannot be said that the accident arose out of and in the course of her employment. Therefore, according to him, Sec. 3(1) of the Act is not satisfied. The second submission of the said learned counsel is that the claimants are not dependants of the deceased, who was a married daughter. Thus, according to him, Sec. 2(d) of the Act, which defines the term "dependant" is not satisfied in the present case and, therefore, also, also the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. He also points out that this aspect, of claimants not being dependants, was not considered by the Authority below. These are the only two submissions made by the said learned counsel. He also relied on certain decisions which will be presently considered.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants reiterates the reasoning of the authority below and contends that the decision arrived at by the authority below is correct. He also relied on certain decisions, which will be presently considered.

7. Dealing with the first of the abovesaid two submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, we shall, before going into the legal position and the authorities cited by the said learned counsel, point out one factual point noted by the authority below. It is as follows :

"One Thirumathi Kanchana Mala Who was examined as R. W. 1 has deposed that while the deceased was in the society (appellant), her husband came and asked her to accompany him, that the deceased beat her husband and that the latter has stabbed her. It was also her evidence the husband and wife used to quarrel often and the society has warned them not to enter into the society like this"*

.

The abovesaid observation of the authority below has not been in any way assailed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

8. Now, coming to the legal position, as such, we may first of all point out Sec. 3(1) of the Act, which says,

"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. So, it has only to be seen whether in the present case, the death of victim was caused by accident arising out of and in the