Injuries resulting from intentional acts such as assault do not qualify as 'accidents' under the Employee’s Compensation Act, thus denying compensation claims.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed seeking to challenge the judgment and award dated 22.02.2018 in E.C.A No.83/2014 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mandya [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”]. By the Impugned Judgment, the petition filed under Section 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as the “E.C. Act”] seeking compensation has been dismissed.

2. The Learned Trial Court has found that the injury sustained is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the E.C. Act, and thus, the petition has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised only one challenge to the Impugned Judgment. He submits that the Impugned Judgment suffers from an infirmity and there were two incidences i.e., one of injury and the subsequent which led to the murder/death of the deceased and the Learned Trial Court has wrongly considered the second incident to pass the Impugned Judgment and Award.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Impugned Judgment does not suffer from any infirmity since the injury was not caused during the course of employment.

5. Briefly the facts as set out in the claim petition are that the deceased Swamy (original petitioner) was working in a stone quarry belonging to the respondent as a daily wager. He absented himself from work on two days, and thereafter, when he went to work on 26.05.2010, the respondent abused the said Swamy and assaulted him with a piece of firewood which led to suffering injuries and permanent disability. The claim petition in addition sets out that a police complaint has been lodged against the Employer bearing Crime No.334/2010, wherein the police have registered a case under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC. The record also shows that during the course of proceedings before the Trial Court, the deceased was murdered and another complaint was filed against the respondent and his associates and criminal proceedings bearing S.C.No.38/2011 have been initiated against the respondent. Thus, the claim petition was filed by the petitioners seeking compensation as a result of the injuries which were previously sustained by the original petitioner due to which he was unable to carry out his work.

6. The matter was contested before the Trial Court by the respondent. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court:

"1) Whether the applicants prove Sri. Swamy s/o Ramegowda, being employed as labour in Shindaboganahalli, Quarry belong to the respondent, metw with accident/assault on 26.5.2010 and sustained grievous injuries resulting in disablement?

2) Whether the accident arose out of and during the course of employment of the applicant under the respondent?

3) What was the monthly wages of the applicant?

4) What was the age of the applicant at the time of accident?

5) What is the amount of compensation the applicant was entitled to receive?

6) Which respondent is liable to deposit the compensation before this court?

7) To what order?"

7. Evidence was led by the legal representatives/ claimants of the deceased as well as the respondent. The learned Trial Court after examining the facts found that although the petitioner was injured, this injury could not be said to be in terms of Section 3 of the Employees' Compensation Act, since it was not arising out of an accident at the workplace. The learned Trial Court held that the injury was an assault and other related offences under Sections 363, 302, 201 read with 149 of IPC. The relevant extracts of the Impugned Judgment are as below:

"13. Sec.3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act deal with employers li