In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of Decision:13.2.2020 Sunder Pal ---Appellant vs.

Smt. Sunder ---Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal ***

Present: Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for the respondent ***

Rekha Mittal, J.

The present appeal directs challenge against order dated

18.5.2015 passed by the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (in short “the Act”) whereby compensation has been assessed on account of death of Surat Singh on 23.6.2007.

The Commissioner assessed liability to the tune of Rs.

2,74,018/-, detailed in concluding para of the order under issue No. 4.

The sole submission made by counsel for the appellant is that as Surat Singh was murdered during the intervening night of 23/24.6.2007 while sleeping on tubewell in the fields of appellant, the case does not fall within the purview of incident arising out of and in the course of employment under Section 3(1) of the Act, therefore, findings of the Commissioner on this aspect can not sustain and are liable to be set aside.

In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Private Limited vs. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak 1969 ACJ 422. Further reliance has been placed upon judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited vs. Veerappan and others 2018 ACJ 2769.

Counsel for the respondent-claimant has supported findings of the Commissioner on the aforesaid aspect of the matter. He has referred to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court Leela Bai and another vs. Seema Chouhan and another Civil Appeal Nos(s) 931 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) No. 5576 of 2017 decided on January 22, 2019 and judgment of the Bombay High Court State of Maharashtra vs. Arti and others 2008 ACJ 1406.

The precise issue involved in the present appeal is, whether Surat Singh sustained injuries resulting in his murder out of and in the course of employment to fall within the ambit of Section 3(1) of the Act.

Before adverting to the facts of the case at hand, it is appropriate to note certain observations made by Hon'ble the Suprme Court in Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Private Limited's case (supra), quoted thus:-

“5. To come within the Act the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment. The words "in the course of the employment" mean "in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it." The words "arising out of employment" are understood to mean that "during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered." In other words there must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment. The expression "arising out of employment" is again not confined to the mere nature of the employment. The expression applies to employment as such to its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents. If by reason of any of those factors the workman is brought within the zone of special danger the injury would be one which arises 'out of employment'. To put it differently if the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of the employment, the claim for compensation must succeed, unless of course the workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act. In Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co. v. Highley Lord Sumner laid down the following test for determining whether an accident "arose out of the employment":

"There is, however, in my opinion, one test which is always at any rate applicable, because it arises upon the very words of the statute, and it is generally of some real assistance. It is this: Was it part of the injured person's employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do that which caused h