Karnataka High Court
Smt Mala V vs The Executive Director on 10 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:40586
MFA No. 1880 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.JOSHI
M.F.A. NO. 1880 OF 2019 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MALA V,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
W/O LATE VENKATARAJU.
2. MASTER PUNITH,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATARAJU.
3. KUM.VEENA,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
D/O LATE VENKATARAJU.
THE APPELLANT NO.3 IS MINOR,
REP. BY HER MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN
Digitally signed THE FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN.
by T S
NAGARATHNA
Location: High
ALL ARE R/AT NO.123,
Court of 7TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD,
Karnataka
NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
GANDHINAGAR, KENGERI UPANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 060.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI KRISHNA KISHORE S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
CONSORITUM FOR DEWATS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:40586
MFA No. 1880 of 2019
DISSEMINATION SOCIETY (CDD),
STANZIN TSEPHEL,
NO.205 (OPP BEEDI WORKERS COLONY)
KOMMAGHATTA ROAD,
BANDEMATH, KENGERI SATTELITE TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 060.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SIJI MALAYIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 28/12/2018, PASSED IN ECA NO.118/2016, ON THE FILE
OF THE MEMBER, MACT AND XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT
OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-14),
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENING AT
KALABURGI, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 28/12/2018, passed in ECA No.118/2016 by the learned XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-14), dismissing the claim petition for compensation, the petitioners have approached this Court in appeal.
2. The petitioners are the wife and children of the deceased Venkataraju, who was appointed as Office Attendant -3- NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019 on 01.05.2012 by the respondent on contract of service for the work of housekeeping in the premises and also performing the opening and closing of the office and making other arrangements of meetings etc. It was further submitted that, the deceased Venkataraju was earning a sum of Rs.9,011/- per month. It was further contended that, on 23.02.2015 at about 6:00 a.m, the deceased Venkataraju left the house to attend the work, and thereafter, petitioner No.1 received the call from the respondent stating that her husband has died in the premises. Immediately she rushed to the place of work of her husband and came to know that her husband was murdered by the co-workers. In the scuffle he had sustained injuries and died due to 'accidental murder' committed by the other co-workers within the premises of employer, in the course of employment at about 9:30 a.m. It was further contended that, petitioner No.1 has given complaint on the same day to the jurisdictional police and thereafter, she came to know that the assailants of her husband were Susheelamma, Manjulamma and Jayalakshmi and two security persons who were working at the time of the incident. The jurisdictional police have registered the complaint for the offences punishable under Section 302 R/w Section 34 of IPC -4- NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019 making the Executive Director of employer company as accused No.1 and Susheelamma as accused No.2. The police after the investigation, in collusion with the officials of the respondent- employer and the co-workers have filed B-report which was challenged by the petitioners by filing objection.
3. It was contended that the incident took place during the course of employment of the deceased at his working place and as such the employer is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. It was further contended that, deceased was aged 47 years, earning more than Rs.12,000/- per month and they were depending upon the earnings of the deceased. Hence, they sought for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with costs and interest.
4. After service of notice, the respondent has appeared through its counsel and filed objection statement denying the age, income of the deceased and also the relationship between the deceased and petitioners. It was contended that on 23-2-2015 respondent met petitioner No.1 at her residence; informed about the sickness of Venkataraju; he was sent to Shreya Hospital for treatment and then he was referred to BGS hospital; on the way to the hospital he died and he was declared -5- NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019 brought dead at BGS hospital. As per B report submitted by the police, the cause of death of deceased was 'respiratory failure due to consumption of some substance' and therefore, in case of suicide committed by a workman, the employer is not liable to pay compensation. He also contended that he has paid expenses of Rs.25,000/- on 28-4-2015 vide Ch.No.000532 dated 27-4- 2015 of HDFC Bank for cremation charges; paid provident fund directly to the applicants by PF Department, paid Rs.59,995/- on 27-5-2015 by Ch.No.658624 dated 24-4-2015 drawn on SBI towards gratuity, Rs.1,800/- in cash on 4-3-2015 towards ambulance charges and pension scheme as per rule and as approved by PF department. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Venkataraju died due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 23.02.2015 at about 7.00 a.m., in Consortium For Dewats Dissemination Society (CDD) Near Beedi Employees colony, Kengeri Uppanagar, Bengaluru, during the course of his employment as office attendant under the Respondent?-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much?
3. What Order or Award?"
6. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence of PWs 1 to 4, RW1, Exs.P1 to P22 and Exs.R1 to 4, heard the arguments by both sides and dismissed the claim petition by impugned judgment.
7. Being aggrieved by the above said judgment and award, the petitioners have approached this Court in appeal.
8. This Court while admitting the appeal on 4-9-2019, framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:
"i. Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants, when the relationship of employee and employer between the deceased Venkataraju and the respondent is not in dispute?
ii. Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition without considering both the oral and documentary evidence on record especially the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4, who had stated on oath that the deceased was working under the sole respondent?-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019 iii. Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition in the facts and circumstances of the present case?"
9. On issuance of notice, respondent appeared through its counsel and the Tribunal records were secured.
10. Arguments by both sides are heard.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners submit that the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on erroneous presumptions and appreciation of the evidence. He submit that the incident had taken place within the premises of the respondent-Company and that there were two complaints which were filed in respect of this incident. The first complaint was by the petitioner No.1 wherein she had alleged that some of the employees of the respondent-Company assaulted the deceased Venkataraju and it was a murder. The second complaint was by the assailants-Susheelamma and others, wherein they had alleged that deceased has misbehaved with them in the morning and when the said Susheelamma had escaped from the clutches of the deceased, deceased Venkataraju feared that she may file a complaint and therefore, he has committed suicide. Though the complaint filed by said -8- NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019 Susheelamma did not mention about the suicide, it had only mentioned that the deceased had misbehaved with her and had tried to strangulate her and there was an attempt for murder, the Tribunal has considered the documents and came to the conclusion that it was a suicide. The Tribunal has believed the chargesheet filed by the police as against the deceased, which was an abate summary chargesheet. But it has not considered the complaint which was closed by the police colluding with the employer i.e. respondent stating that it was a suicide. Therefore, he contends that the conclusions reached by the Tribunal were not proper and in fact, it was a murder. The second contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the murder occurred within the premises of the respondent- Company and since the deceased was in employment of the respondent at the time of the incident, respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the appellants. Hence, he submits that the approach of the Tribunal was not proper and therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex -9- NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019 Court in the case of Smt. Rita Devi and others v. New India 1 Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Company has submitted that the provisions of Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, laid down that, if the injured or the deceased was found to be under the influence of drink or drugs, then he is not entitled for any compensation. He submits that the first complaint was by the said Susheelamma, wherein she had alleged that deceased had misbehaved with her and had tried to outrage her modesty and kill her and she lodged the complaint to the police at the earliest point of time. Since deceased did not survive, the police have filed the abated chargesheet. It is contended that, as on the date of the incident, admittedly, the employees, i.e., Susheelamma and others had assaulted the deceased and the deceased had gone into the toilet, consumed alcohol and pesticide and succumbed to the same. It is submitted that later a case was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner No.1 herein and ultimately, the police have come to 1 AIR 2000 SC 1930
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019 the conclusion that it was a suicide and it was not a murder and as such, filed the 'B' summary report. In this regard, he heavily relied on the Post Mortem Report which was produced at Ex.P19. It is submitted that in catena of decisions, the High Courts as well as the Apex Court have held that the provisions of Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, would not apply to a case if it is a suicide. He points out that the consumption of the poison by the deceased is a clear indication of the suicide. A 'suicide' cannot be an accident within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Employees Compensation Act. In this regard, he had placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Madras High Court in the case of Managing Director Vs. Poonjolai in CMA (MD) No.1561/1996. He also relies upon the decision in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Sunil Kumar Ghosh2. He also relied on the judgment in the case of Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore and Another3 and Mallikarjuna G. Hiremath v. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and Another.4 2 1984 (4) SCC 246 3 AIR 2006 SC 2830 4 AIR 2009 SC 2019
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019
13. A perusal of the Tribunal records would indicate that the appellants/petitioners have produced the complaint filed by the petitioner No.1 at Ex.P2 and FIR at Ex.P1. In his complaint, the petitioner No.1 had stated that the deceased was working as a house keeping worker in respondent-Company and on 23-2-2015 at about 7.00 a.m. he left for his work and thereafter she came to know that he had quarreled with one Susheelamma. She states that her husband had been murdered and she does not know the details and therefore, the investigation may be conducted by the police. She directed suspicion on said Susheelamma and one Rajesh, who is the head of the respondent-Company. Admittedly, the police have investigated the complaint filed by petitioner No.1 and they have filed 'B' summary report. Curiously, the said 'B' summary report is not produced by the petitioners before the Tribunal. The perusal of the inquest panchanama of the deceased at Ex.P5 would indicate that there were some minor abrasive injuries on the body and no details are available as to what had happened in the premises of the respondent-Company. All that can be found from these police records arising out of the complaint filed by the petitioner No.1 is
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019 that, the witnesses had expressed doubt about the nature of the death of the deceased.
14. The petitioners have also produced the protest memo filed by them to the Magistrate against 'B' summary report. This protest memo is only the version of the petitioners, but the details of 'B' summary report were not available on record. However, Post Mortem Report of the deceased was produced at Ex.P19. It discloses that the FSL report of viscera found the presence of the alcohol and organophosphorous insecticide in the blood of the deceased. On the basis of that, the Medical Officer has opined that the death is due to respiratory failure as a result of some substance containing organophosphorous insecticide. But however, the deceased had also consumed alcohol prior to death.
15. The perusal of the injuries found on the body of the deceased show that there were seven abrasion injuries and none of them were found to be fatal in nature as per the report of the Medical Officer which is also produced at Ex.P22. Thus, it is evident that there was no prima facie material on record to show that the deceased died a homicidal death.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019
16. The respondent-Company has produced the FIR arising out of the complaint filed by Susheelamma at Ex.R1. The said complaint and FIR show that on 23-02-2015 at 8.00 a.m. the said Susheelamma was cleaning the conference room and the deceased also came near her and he tried to molest her, which she opposed and there was a scuffle and due to the résistance offered by the said Susheelamma the deceased had tried to strangulate her and she escaped and came out. Thereafter, one Jayalakshmamma and Manjulamma came there and informed the husband of the said Susheelamma and he had picked her up and had taken her to Shreya Hospital. The said complaint does not mention anything about the further conduct of the deceased Venkataraju. Therefore, what transpired after Susheelamma was assaulted and left in the spot is not available on record. Obviously, such details were available in the 'B' summary report which has been conveniently not produced by the petitioners herein for the reasons best known to them.
17. The petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 wherein she has reiterated the petition averments. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that though the incident had taken place on 23-2-2015 after the complaint was filed by the said
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019 Susheelamma. She also admit that the police have filed the 'B' summary report and states that she has challenged the said 'B' Summary report. She denies that it was a suicide. Therefore, there is nothing in her evidence which would probabilise the fact that death of deceased Venkataraju was a homicidal death.
18. PWs.2 and 3 are the Investigating Officers of the case and they have admitted that PW1 had lodged a complaint and they say that they have not found any material and therefore, they have filed the 'B' summary report. They admit that there was a scuffle in the premises between the deceased Venkataraju and the said Susheelamma. On the contrary, they say that the assault was made by the deceased on the said Susheelamma and she had lodged the complaint while she was taking treatment in the hospital. Therefore, from the cross- examination of PWs.2 and 3 nothing worth was elicited which would probabilise that it was a homicidal death.
19. PW4 happens to be the Medical Officer who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased Venkataraju. It was through him that Exs.P17 to 22 i.e., PM report, Police requisition, letter of the IO and opinion regarding the injuries were furnished by him. He was treated hostile by the counsel for the petitioners
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019 and he was cross-examined. The cross-examination of PW4 shows that the death of the deceased was due to consumption of orgonophosphorous substance. He denies that the death was due to the injuries sustained by the deceased. He denies that he had colluded with the employer and had given a false report.
20. Thus, it is evident that there is nothing on record which would probablise that the death of deceased Venkataraju was an accidental death.
21. The provisions of Section 3(1) of the Employees Compensation Act read as below:
"3(1) 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: 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 workman for a period exceeding 3 three] days;
(b) in respect of any 4 injury, not resulting in death, caused by] an accident which is directly attributable to--
(i)The workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or
(ii)The wilful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or
(iii)The wilful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019 been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen."
22. It is evident that the provisions postulate that atleast the following three specific requirements before an employer can be made liable to pay are to be satisfied;
(1) That it is the workman who has suffered the personal injury;
(2) That the personal injuries should be on account of an accident;
(3) That the accident should arise out of and in the course of the employment of the workman.
23. In the case on hand, it is evident that the deceased was a workman as admitted by the respondent. The Post Mortem report shows that the deceased had died due to consumption of the poisonous substance of the nature of orgonophosphorous material. Not only that, he was also found to have consumed the alcohol. Therefore, it is evident that, if a person has consumed the poison, it cannot be an accidental one. As such, the burden of proving that the consumption of such orgonophosphorous material by the deceased was accidental in nature was on the petitioners. If the petitioners could establish that such
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019 consumption of the poison was accidental, then only they could have succeeded in the matter. Evidently 'B' summary report which is alleged to have been the out come of collusion between the PWs. 2, 3 and the respondent is not before this Court. The contents of the protest memo filed by the petitioners only are before this Court which is not sufficient enough to come to the conclusion that there was an accident.
24. Secondly, the question is, whether the murder can be an accident? The petition filed by the petitioners unequivocally mention that it is an accidental murder. Obviously, the two words are antonyms. If it is an accidental death, then obviously, it cannot be an intentional one and therefore, it cannot be a murder. If it is a murder, it is intentional and it cannot become an accident. Therefore, it is evident that the petition itself is not happily worded and it does not make a sense.
25. The decision relied by the learned counsel for the appellants in the case Smt. Rita Devi and others v. New India Assurance Company Limited and another5 referred supra, relates to the passengers of an auto rickshaw committed an act 5 AIR 2000 SC 1930
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019 of felony of stealing the auto rickshaw and those passengers murdered the auto rickshaw driver and therefore, it was considered to be an accident involved in use of the motor vehicle. It is pertinent to note that, it was a claim arising out of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein, use of the vehicle is a sine-qua- non. 'Negligence' was not an essential factor and therefore, when the vehicle was involved in the accident, the liability was fastened on the insurance company.
26. In a case on hand, the claim of the petitioners is governed under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act and obviously, the provisions of Section 3 are not in pari- materia with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the decision in the case of Rita devi (supra) cannot be made applicable to the case on hand.
27. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent placed reliance on the decision rendered by Allahabad High Court in the case of Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited v. Smt. Godawari Devi and others6. It was a case wherein a suicide was involved and the Court had held that 6 1998 SCC OnLine All 221
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019 death of an employee not occurred as the result of accident arising out of and in the course of employment in Saudi Arabia, which was a suicidal in nature do not come within the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It was held in para 14 as below:
"14. In the backdrop of above legal position, now let us consider the present case. It is not in dispute that late Sarveshwar Dutt who was a workman employed by the appellant, had died in Saudi Arabia In order to maintain the claim for compensation under the provisions of S.3 of the Act, it was required to be proved that the death had occurred in an accident which arose out of and in the course of employment of the workman, meaning thereby, it should be proved that it was a case of " employment death." At the relevant point of time, late Sarveshwar Dutt was not working in the project or unit of the appellant in Saudi Arabia. He had fled away from the site and remained untraceable for a period of about 2 1/2 months. During this period, obviously he did not join the camp site. His dead body was found hanging on a tree and the symptoms which had appeared on the dead body indicated on autopsy that it was a case of suicide, i.e., the late workman brought to an end to his own life for the reason which is hidden in the penumbral zone far away from judicial scrutiny. It would be a travesty of justice if a workman who commits suicide after having left his engagement/employment for the last 2 1/2 months at a place away from the camp site of the project is held to have received personal injury on account of accident arising out of and in the course of employment. If the interpretation as put on behalf of the respondent that late Sarveshwar Dutt died in the course of employment is accepted, it would lead to absurd results and the very purpose of the phrase "arising out of and in the course of employment" used in S.3(1) of the Act would be frustrated."
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019
28. Similarly, in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Sunil Kumar Ghosh7 the word 'accident' was considered in detail. The word 'accident' was interpreted in following words:
"An accident is an occurrence or on event which is unforeseen and startling, happening of which is not inherent in the normal course of events and is not ordinarily expected to happen or occur. An event or occurrence the happening of which is ordinarily expected in the normal course by almost everyone undertaking a rail journey cannot be called an 'accident'. A collision of two trains or derailment of a train or blowing up of a train is something which no one ordinarily expects in the course of a journey and falls within the parameters of the definition of accident. But a jolt to the bogie which is detached from one train and attached to another cannot be termed as an accident. No shunting can take place without such a jerk or an impact at least when it is attached or annexed to a train by a shunting engine. If a passenger tumbles inside the compartment or tumbles out of the compart the compartment, compartment, it cannot be said that an accident has occurred to the train or a part of the train. It is doubtless an accident 'to the passenger' Similar is the case of an injury sustained on account of falling down whilst getting on or off a running or stationary train or sustained when he slips in a compartment or when something falls on him whilst travelling. All such mishaps are not connected with the accident to the train or a part of it and therefore, Section 82-A is not applicable. SLP disposed of."
29. In another decision in the case of Special Officer, Periyakulam Anna Polythene Workers' Industrial 8 Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Ayyammal , the Madras High 7 1984 (4) SCC 246 8 1994 (2) ACJ 1225
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019 Court had held that, when the husband murders the wife in her workplace, it do not fall within the meaning of the 'accident' under Section 3 of Workmens' Compensation Act.
30. In the case of Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore and Another9, the word 'accident' was dealt by the Apex Court in detail. In para 7 it was held as below:
"7. The expression "accident" means an untoward mishap which is not expected or designed. "Injury" means physiological injury. In Fenton v. Thorley and Co. Ltd. (1903) AC 448, it was observed that the expression "accident" is used in the popular and ordinary sense of the word as denoting an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed. The above view of Lord Macnaghten was qualified by the speech of Lord Haldane A.C. in Trim Joint District School Board of Management v. Kelly (1914) AC 676, as follows:
"I think that the context shows that in using the word "designed" Lord Macnaghten was referring to designed by the sufferer"."
31. The decision in the case Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Meenaxi Dhareppa Koli10 lays down that, 'Mental Stress' is not included in 'occupational diseases' under Schedule III of the Act and therefore, it cannot be accepted that the act of suicide was brought about by acute 9 AIR 2006 SC 2830 10 2003 SCC OnLine Kar 200: ILR 2006 Kar 2104
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019 stress which was the cause for death. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that there was a causal connection by an act of suicide and his employment.
32. In the case of Mallikarjuna G. Hiremath v. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and Another11 it was held that when the death of the truck driver was due to drowning and the accident taking place when the deceased after reaching destination was sitting on the steps of temple pond, there was no causal connection between the death of the driver and his employment. Therefore, it was held that the employer was not liable to pay the compensation.
33. When we examine the factual matrix of the present case in the light of the above decisions, it is evident that the deceased died due to consumption of the alcohol as well as organoprosphorous substance. Obviously, Section 3(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, clearly mentions that the compensation cannot be awarded if there was consumption of the alcohol. Therefore, even if we hold that there was "an accidental murder," then on account of the bar contained in 11 AIR 2009 SC 2019
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019 Section 3(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, the compensation could not be awarded to the petitioners.
34. The second aspect to be noted is that, even if it was a murder, there was no causal connection between the deceased employer and alleged murder. It was on account of the rivalry or quarrel between the two employees. The quarrel between the two employees cannot be a ground that the employer should have prevented the said incident. It was nothing to do with the works entrusted to deceased by the employer. There was no such causal connection between the death of deceased Venaktaraju and the employment. Therefore, simply because the incident had taken place within the premises of the employer, it cannot be presumed that such incident or death was in furtherance of the employment itself. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such, the substantial questions of law raised are answered against the appellants. No error can be found in the appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that there was no causal connection between the death of deceased Venkataraju and his employment and also
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC:40586 MFA No. 1880 of 2019 that it was not a murder but it was a suicide. Hence, the appeal is bereft of any merits. As such, the following:
ORDER
(a) The appeal is dismissed.
(b) The Judgment and award dated 28/12/2018, passed in ECA No.118/2016 by the learned XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-14) is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE tsn*