Gurunath and Appa Rao Ltd. vs Ginni Gannemma

Channakesav Reddy, J.—This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is preferred against the judgment of our learned brother Raghuvir, J., in C.M.A. No. 501 of 1974. By the said judgment, Raghuvir, J., reversed the order of the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation in W.C. Case No. 214 of 1972 and awarded a sum of Rs. 7,000/- as compensation to Ginni Gannamma, the widow of the workman Ginni Appalaswamy, who met with a fatal accident while in the employment of M/s. Gurunath and Appa Rao Ltd., Naupada, the Appellant in this appeal.

The material facts are short and simple. The Appellant company manufactures salt. The deceased Appalaswamy was in their employment as an Assistant Driver. On 2-8-1972 he reported to duty at 9.30 a.m. and accompanied R.W.1, the company''s agent at 10 a.m. in the routine check up of the salt beds. They both saw some persons in the field tampering with the salt beds and pillaging them. Appalaswamy and R.W.1 chased them. After running for a distance, Appalaswamy suddenly fell down and died. He was aged 40 years. P. W.2, a vegatable vendor and one of those who tampered with the salt beds and P. W.3 who was a ryot who was passing along the rastha at that time on his way to Naupada saw the deceased chasing and later heard that he died on the spot. P.W.1, the widow of Appalaswamy, filed an application u/s 22 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') claiming a compensation of Rs. 7,000/-. The Appellant-company disputed the liability and contended that Appalaswamy did not die in the course of his employment and, therefore, was not entitled to any compensation. The Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation on an effective evaluation of the entire evidence adduced in the case rejected the claim of the widow of the deceased holding that the accident did not arise in course of employment. Aggrieved, against the said order P.W. 1 preferred C.M.A. No. 501 of 1974 which as already stated was allowed by our learned brother Raghuvir, J. That in brief is the genessis of this appeal.

The liability of the employer u/s 3 of the Act arises provided the conditions laid down by the said section are satisfied. The conditions laid down by the section are (i) personal injury caused by accident, (ii) accident arising in the course of employment and out of employment.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant does not dispute that personal injury to the deceased was caused in an accident and in the course of employment. But he submits that the accident did not arise out of his employment. According to him, there is absolutely no evidence to establish any nexus between the accident and the employment of the deceased. He placed strong reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Kamalabai Chintamani v. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway 1971 A.C.J. 170. In that case, the deceased. Chintamani a railway engine driver of the goods train was driving the train. At that time the Assistant Station Master of the station on duty informed the Guard that another Down Goods Train was passing through, viz., the first loop and therefore, showed a red flag 1o the driver and cautioned him to stop. Chintamani stopped the engine but was anxious to know why he had to stop the work. He told the Guard that they should finish the shunting earlier so that they could reach Ballarshah as early as possible. The Guard then explained to him why be had shown him the red flag. While Chintamani was talking to the Guaid and the Guard was facing the other goods train which was coming, Chintamani sat down there and then collapsed. His widow Kamalabai claimed compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act. The claim was resisted by the Central Railway contending that Chintamani died a natural death because of the heart failure and there was no causal connection of the employment with the ultimate death. Accepting the contention, the Commissioner rejected the claim. The widow of the deceased preferred an appeal. The High Court, after referring to the several decided cases, observed:

Therefore, it is clear that in all cases where a workman dies in the course of his employment, he cannot be given compensation. It may be that he died or got injury in the course of his employment. But in order to see whether he got the accidental injury in the course of his employment, we have to see whether there is clear and unequivocal evidence that the deceased died because of a particular strain during the course of his duties. It is not enough if it is shown that the workman died as a natural result of the disease from which he was suffering. It is not even enough if it is shown that if a workman was suffering from a particular disease and as a result of wear and tear of his employment he died of that disease the Appellant will have to show that the deceased died not only because of the heart disease from which he was suffering but also because some contributory cause on account of his employment or his duties which he was performing at Chanda or between Hajri and Chanda. The evidence here, in any view does not show any causal connection between the death of the deceased driver and his employment.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Yet another decision on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel was Parwatibai Vs. Manager, Raj Kumar Mills, . In that case, the workman Kulu while mounting a belt on a machine to start it, received a jerk and fell down and died of heart failure. In an application filed for compensation, the Commissioner held that the deceased did not receive any shock or jerk in an attempt to start the machine and did not fall down on account of any such shock or jerk and rejected the claim The High Court on appeal, after referring to the several decisions, upheld the order of the Commissioner observing:

One principle that emerges from all these decision is that whether the accident "arises out of the employment or not depends on the facts of each case; the accident must be connected with the employment and must arise out of it there must be a causal connection or association between the employment and the accidental injury. As Lord Haldane had observed in Mrs. Margaret Tom of Simpson v. Sinclair (1917) A.C. 127:

The question really turns on the character of the causation through the employment which is required by the words ''arising out of.'' Now it is to be observed that it is the employment which is pointed to as to by the distinctive cause, and not any particular kind of physical occurrence. The condition is that the employment is to give rise to the circumstances of injury by accident. Thus if a particular accident would not to have happened to a workman had he not been employed to work in the particular place and condition, then it would be difficult to say that it was connected with the employment as to have arisen out of it.

On the facts of the case the learned Judges held that the association of the accident with the employment was not established and consequently the order of the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation was upheld.

Thus the law on the subject is now clear and crystallised. The accident can be said to have arisen out of employment when the employment, had not particular kind of physical occurrence, is the contributory cause if not the main cause of the accident. In other words, the accident would not be one arising out of the employment if it could not have happened to a workman had he not been employed to work in a particular place and condition. Even when the accident had occurred on account of risk incidental to and connected with the duties of service, unless the workman had exposed himself to this risk by his own rashness or negligence even then the accident would be one arising out of employment.

In this case, the facts found clearly establish that the accident would not have happened had he not been employed to work in the particular place at the time of the accident. The deceased workman was accompanying the Agent P.W.I on the date of the accident on a routine check up of the salt pans. Both of them found some persons tampering with the salt pans and pillaging them. Therefore, they chased the miscreants. It is not disputed that it is the duty of the employees to chase people stealing salt from the salt pans under the instructions of the employer. It was in the act of chasing that the workman died. P.W.I, the widow of the deceased-workman stated that her husband was aged 41 and he was hale and healthy. Even if he was not hale and healthy it was the chasing that was the contributory cause for the death. Therefore the death arose out of employment of the deceased. The Supreme Court in Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Pvt. Ltd v. Ibrahim Mohammad Issak 1969 A.C.J. 422 explaining the expression ''arising out of and in the course of employment'' observed:

The words ''in the course of the employment'' means ''in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it''. The works ''arising out of employment'' are understood to mean that ''during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered''. In other words, there must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment. The expression ''arising out of employment'' is again not confined to the mere nature of the employment.--if the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of the employment, the claim for compensation must succeed, unless of course the workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act.

In Rees v. Thomas 1899 (1) Q.B. 1015, A.L. Smith, L.J. held that the deceased was acting in the interest of his master in an emergency which suddenly arose and was killed and the death was during the course of employment.

In Polama v. John Parr and Sons 1926 All E.R. 177, Bankes, L.J. said:

As a general rule, a sevant has an implied authority in an emergency to endeavour to protect his master''s property if he sees it in danger or has reasonable grounds for thinking that he sees it in danger and an implied authority is as good as an express authority.

In Charles R. Davidson and Company v. M. Robb or Officer 1918 A.C. 304, Lord Finley L.C. approving the test laid down in Stewart and Son v. Longhurst 1916 (2) K.B. 803 held:

Arising out of the employment'' obviously means arising out of the work which the man is employed to do and what is incident to it?in other words, out of his service.

On the facts found in this case, we have no hesitation to hold that the accident arose out of his work which the deceased-workman was employed to do viz. to chase miscreants and the death was incidental to and connected with the work of the workman.

In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.