Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(08.07.2010) This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act being aggrieved by the order dated 11.2.2004 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation by which he has allowed the claim and has also allowed the penalty up to the extent of 50% as enumerated under Section 4-A of the Workmen Compensation Act.

2. This Court by an order dated18.12.2009 admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:-

"1. Whether the employee's death due to dog bite can be termed as arising out of and in the course of employment and if not, whether the employer can be forced to pay compensation?

2. Whether in absence of the notice u/ s. 10 of the workmen Compensation Act, 1923 from the claimant/claimants the non-awareness of the employer can be penalized by a penalty to the tune of 50% of the amount of award u/s 4A(3) Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.

3. On the factual scenario when the dog bite two people including the deceased employee, the deceased employee did not take any diligent precaution which resulted in his death while the other persons took precaution and is still surviving. In this scenario the action of the deceased for not taking the treatment can be termed as "willful negligence" on his part or not?"

4. The next witness is Dhannalal Dasore who has been examined by the claimants who also suffered with the dog bite. He has corroborated the statement given by the claimants and submitted that on the relevant date, the said dog has bitten him and thereafter he entered in the M.P.E.B. Office and also bitten deceased Raghunath. He has further stated that he has taken treatment but deceased Raghunath has not taken any treatment, as a consequence of the same, he died.

5. The next witness is Ismial Khan who was also an employee of M.P.E.B. and at the relevant time he was also on duty along with deceased Raghunath. He has stated that deceased was employed as a Helper with the appellants. He has further stated that on the relevant date, suddenly a mad dog entered in the office and has bitten the deceased. This witness states that deceased died because of dog's bite.

6. In the present case, the appellants have not examined any witness to controvert the aforesaid facts. Keeping in view the questions of law on which the appeal has been admitted, it is to be seen that the factum of death of the deceased due to dog bite is not disputed. The only question on which the appeal has been admitted is whether the employee's death due to dog bite can be termed as arising out of and in the course of employment and if not, whether the employer can be forced to pay compensation?