Madras High Court
Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, ... vs Kanagambal (Smt.) on 27 October, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995ACJ770, [1995(70)FLR881], (1995)IILLJ231MAD
JUDGMENT Govardhan, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation. Triuchirappalli, dated 12-6-1987 awarding a compensation of Rs. 23,100 to the wife of the deceased Kittappa who died while discharging his duties as an employee under the opposite party.
2. The Applicant in her application had claimed lumpsum payment of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation alleging that her husband during the course of his employment under the opposite party received personal injury on 8-5-1984 which resulted in his death.
3. The respondents in their counter have contended that the duty hours of the husband of the applicant were over by 24 hours on 7-5-1984 and he left the duty and no injury was caused to him by any accident arising out of and in the course of the employment and therefore no compensation can be granted.
4. On the above pleadings, an enquiry was held in W. C. Application No. 16 of 1986 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirappalli who has passed the order granting a compensation of Rs. 23,100 in favour of the applicant.
5. Aggrieved over the same, the respondent has been come forward with this appeal.
6. It is not in dispute that the husband of the applicant was a pointsman employed under the respondent on Sikkal Railway Station. On the early hours of 8-5-1984, he was assaulted by some unknown persons and sustained the grievious injuries and he died subsequently on account of the same. These facts are not in dispute. The Station Master of Sikkal had given a telegram to the police stating that Kittapa on duty pointsmen was attacked by unknown persons at about 1.30 hours and sustained grievious injuries and the station Master had requested the police to investigate. The Station Master examined as second witness for the applicant has stated that the said telegram under EX. A-1 was given by him. This telegram establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that it was only during the course of his employment and on duty, the pointsmen was attacked by some unknown persons and it had resulted in his death. The oral evidence of A. W. 2 that the deceased was not on duty at the time of the accident has therefore to be rejected on account of the fact that his earlier version in writing which was given by him before any deliberations has to be give credence.
7. The only question that has to be considered is whether the injuries sustained by a workman by an unknown person would amount to an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. It has been decided in the decision reported in Smt. Satiya v. Sub-Divisional Officer, P. W. D. (1975) I LLJ 398, that murder is an accident from the point of view of the person who suffered from it and it is an untoward event as defined in Section 3(1) of the Act. Therefore, sustaining injury while on duty and meeting his death subsequently has to be necessarily considered as an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.
8. In the decision report in Bhagu Bank v. General Manager, Central Railway, it has been held as follows :
"Once the proximate connection between the accident and the employment is established the applicant has discharged the burden and in this case the proximate connection between the employment and the injury is the fact that the deceased was at particular spot in the course of his employment and it was at that he was assaulted and done to death".
After the above observation, it was held by the Bombay High Court that the applicant was entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. it was held in the decision reported in Superintending Engineer, Parambikulam-Aliyar Project v. Andammal, (1983) 2 LLJ 326, as follows :
"the deceased had be in the place where he was done to death in the course of his employment for discharging duties. By reason of his being in the particular place, he had to face the peril and the accident resulted in his death was caused to be by such peril. In such a situation there was a casual connection between the accident and the employment".
When we consider these decisions referred by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in his order, we have to necessarily hold that the husband of the applicant was in Sikkal Railway Station on 8-5-1984 at about 1.30 a.m. when he was attacked by an unknown person resulting in his death and therefore, the applicant is entitled to compensation. The Deputy Commissioner has calculated the compensation payable, taking the salary of the deceased and his age, into consideration. No material has been placed before me to hold that the amount fixed by the Deputy Commissioner is erroenous. Therefore I am of opinion that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour/Commissioner for workmen's compensation is well founded and does not call for any interference by this Court. In that view, I hold that the appeal is without merits and is liable to dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.