Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. vs Ram Lakhan Lodhi And Anr. on 13 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001ACJ1276, [2001(89)FLR52], (2001)ILLJ788MP
Author: A.K. Mishra
Bench: A.K. Mishra
JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the Order of Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Satna, dated July 31, 1997, in Case No. 8/WC Act F/1996.
2. Kaushal Prasad Lodhi was daily wages worker with the appellants. He had been assigned the duty of melting tar coal for which he was paid Rs. SI for coming early to the place of duty so that the melted tar coal was available to other workmen engaged at the place of duty. On October 6, 1995, when he was between Mantola and Lakargawan Railway cabin, he was hit by a truck. As a result of this accident he received serious injuries. He was sent to District Hospital, Satna for treatment where he died.
3. Claimants are parents of the deceased. They submit that deceased was their son who died during the course of employment. Respondents are responsible for the loss since they were dependent upon him. Deceased was earning Rs. 30/- per day and he was 20 years old. In addition to Rs. 30/, he was being paid Rs. 5/- for coming early to melt the tar coal. Compensation of Rs. 3,24,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% has been claimed.
4. Appellants have stated that the deceased had not been employed at the place of occurrence on October 6, 1995 nor did he work on October 6, 1995 when the accident took place. Taking place of accident by unknown vehicle and receiving of injuries by the deceased have also been denied. The claimants were not dependent on the deceased who was not being paid Rs. 30/- per day since this rate of wages was not available in the department on this date. It is also submitted that information of accident was not given to them. The deceased died in the truck accident, therefore, truck owner, Insurance company should have been made party to the case. The claimants are not entitled for the loss as claim has been made without any basis.
5. Parties produced evidence before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation on which the finding recorded is that deceased died in the accident and in the course of employment and claimants were dependent on him who was 20 years old and was earning Rs. 900/- per month. It is also found that the claim was preferred within time and the Commissioner was competent to hear and decide the same. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,800/- has been awarded carrying interest > at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of accident. In addition, cost of Rs. 200/- has also been paid and the appellants have been called upon to pay the same within two months.
6. Heard Shri Naman Nagrath for the appellants and Shri R.K. Gupta for the respondents. Perused the documents available on file.
7. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that award is not sustainable. The same is beyond the scope of Section 3(1) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Elaborating the contention, learned counsel submits that accident must arise out of and in course of the employment. Deceased did not die during the course of employment. There is no connection between the accident and the employment. With view to sustain the plea, reliance is placed on Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Bai ValuRaja, AIR 1958 SC 881 : 1958-II-LLJ-249 and Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation v. Francis De Costa, AIR 1997 SC 432 : 1996 (6) SCC 1 : 1997-I-LLJ-34. Shri R.K. Gupta disputes the proposition so advanced and contends that deceased died in the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. Learned counsel contends that deceased was asked to reach the place of duty at 6.00 a.m. for melting the tar coal so that melted tar coal was available for use of other workers reaching the place at 8.00 a.m. For this, he was being paid Rs. 5/-extra. With this background, submission advanced by the counsel is that there is notional extension of course of employment, therefore, the case comes within the parameter of Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The claim is maintainable and has been rightly allowed by the Commissioner. Learned counsel places reliance on General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay v. Ms. Agnes, AIR 1964 SC 193 : 1963-I1-LLJ-615 and single Bench Judgment of this Court in Vidyaram Kanauha v. Punabi, 1999-III-LLJ (Suppl)-410 (MP).
8. Giving our anxious consideration to the question advanced by learned counsel for parties we are of opinion that the case is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Regional Director, E. S. I. Corporation '$ case (supra) in which it has been held that the words "accident arising out of his employment" indicate that any accident which occurred while going to the place of employment or for the purpose of the employment, cannot be said to have arisen out of his employment. There is no causal connection between the accident and the employment. It is further held that if "employment" begins from the moment the employee set out from his house for the factory, then even if the employee stumbles and falls down at the door step of his house, the accident will have to be treated as to have taken place in the course of his employment. This interpretation would lead to absurdity and has to be avoided. In this case, Apex Court considered the earlier decisions of the Court in General Manager, B. E, S. T. Undertaking, Bombay (supra) and Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. (supra) also. The extension of service in former case has been due to the standing Rules of B.E.S.T. Undertaking calling upon the drivers to attend duty punctually for which stipulation was to come and go by the buses of the undertaking. With this background, the Court had ruled that "accident arising out of and in the course of his employment" could be extended notionally to cover such employees from the stage the journey for the place of duty starts. In the present case, in the light of interpretation placed by Apex Court in decision Regional Director, E. S. I. Corporation's case (supra) considering almost all cases cited before us, notional extension "accident arising out of and in the course of employment" cannot be given. Simply because the deceased was being paid Rs. 5/- extra for reaching the place of duty at 6.00 a.m. for melting tar coal, it cannot be said that his employment started from the house to the place or duty as well. As a matter of fact, he was being paid Rs. 5/- for undertaking extra duty which was to be performed at place other than place of accident. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that deceased did not die in accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Therefore, claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is not maintainable. Remedy, in our opinion, lies under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-for claiming compensation against the tort feasor.
9. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. Order of Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, dated July 31, 1997 is set aside. No order as to costs.