Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. vs Sabita Gope And Ors. on 17 September, 1999
10. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri K. Venu Madhav, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-applicants that the deceased was employed as cleaner by the owner of the lorry bearing No. AP.24V.2272 and inasmuch as he died during the course of his employment, the Tribunal below correctly awarded compensation and fixed the liability. It is submitted that the oral and documentary evidence filed on behalf of the applicants clearly proved that the deceased died during the course of employment. It is further submitted that though the deceased died in the accident caused by the lorry bearing No. ATN67B.8357, the same was during the course of and in connection with the employment of the deceased with O.P. No. 1; as such, the Tribunal below has correctly assessed the compensation and fixed the liability. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of Divisional Manager, Orissa Forest Development Corporation United v. Janakalata Barik, and, further, on the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Sabita Gope, .
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Section 30 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
General Manager, Prakasham District ... vs Pavuralla Santhakumari And Ors. on 24 September, 2003
In the case of Prakasam District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited (1 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is to be seen, it is a case where the workman while proceeding to his work place, went to the office the Employee's Union and died due to electric shock while he was removing flag post; as such, the learned Single Judge held that by his own act, he invited peril, he faced, and, there was no casual connection between the accident and employment of the deceased. The said view is taken primarily on the facts situation that the deceased went to the Union Office on his own and died on account of electric shock while doing job in the Union Office; in that view of the matter, the judgment (1 supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant will not support the case on hand. In this case, the cleaner was on duty and reached destination point in the lorry along with the goods and when they were waiting to collect hire charges, in the meanwhile, the driver asked the deceased to bring tiffin and during the said period, the unfortunate accident has occurred. The job which the deceased has undertaken to bring tiffin during their stay after reaching the destination point, is nothing but notional extension of duty, on the cleaner. As such, only on account of his employment, as cleaner on the lorry, owned by O.P. No. 1, the deceased had to be in that particular spot, at that particular moment, in view of his employment and as he has accompanied the said lorry, as otherwise, he could not have been there at all. Merely because the accident occurred only when the vehicle was stopped, and, while he was bringing tiffin on the instructions of the driver; as such, it cannot be said that the accident did not take place during the course of employment. The words 'arising out of and in the course of employment' as used in Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, are to be construed, keeping in view the objects of the Act, which is a beneficial legislation to workmen. The lorry was stopped at the place after reaching destination point and when they were asked to wait for collecting hire charges, the deceased, on the instructions of the driver, went to the hotel to bring tiffin; as such, the job which was undertaken by the deceased, is ancillary and incidental to his employment; in that view of the matter, necessarily it is has to be construed as 'arising out of and in the course of employment', within the meaning of Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the applicants also support their case. Further, in this case, though there is oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the applicants on their behalf, to support their case, there is no evidence from the side of the Opposite parties, to rebut the same. Further, from the cross-examination of P.W.1, nothing adverse was elicited to disprove the claim of the applicants. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal.
Divisional Manager, Boudh Commercial ... vs Janakalata Barik And Ors. on 26 March, 2001
10. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri K. Venu Madhav, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-applicants that the deceased was employed as cleaner by the owner of the lorry bearing No. AP.24V.2272 and inasmuch as he died during the course of his employment, the Tribunal below correctly awarded compensation and fixed the liability. It is submitted that the oral and documentary evidence filed on behalf of the applicants clearly proved that the deceased died during the course of employment. It is further submitted that though the deceased died in the accident caused by the lorry bearing No. ATN67B.8357, the same was during the course of and in connection with the employment of the deceased with O.P. No. 1; as such, the Tribunal below has correctly assessed the compensation and fixed the liability. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of Divisional Manager, Orissa Forest Development Corporation United v. Janakalata Barik, and, further, on the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Sabita Gope, .
1