H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. vs Narmada Devi and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—The appellant has assailed the award dated 28.8.2003 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, Chopal, District Shimla, in Case No. 2/99.

Shri Om Parkash was employed as Chowkidar and was on duty with the appellant. On 8.10.1997 due to poor visibility he fell and received injuries and died due to the same. His wife and children, as legal heirs, filed the compensation application under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').

On the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following issues:

Whether the deceased received injuries and died during the employment in the department? OPA

Whether the applicant is entitled to get claim/relief as claimed? OPA

Whether the application is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPR

Whether the applicants are estopped to file the present application on account of their acts, conduct, omission and lapses as alleged? OPR

Relief.

On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and after due consideration of the material on record, the Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,52,887.50 along with simple interest @12% per annum. The award was passed on 20.9.2003 which has been impugned herein.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The fact that the deceased was working with the appellant and was on duty at the time of accident is not disputed. From the sworn testimony of Shri Narayan Dass (PW-3) and other witnesses, it is clear that in the night of the accident it was raining, the deceased fell and got injured and died due to storm and cold while coming back from Village Banala to Village Thundal. It is on record that the employee was on duty at the relevant time as he was duty bound to keep vigil of the property of the employees.

According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, as per the sworn testimony of Dr. S.L. Chauhan (DW-5), it has been brought on record that the deceased died due to asphyxia resulting from regurgitation of food articles into larynges and trachea after consumption of alcohol. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

In my considered view, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant needs to be rejected for the reason that as per the postmortem report Ext.RW-6/A the doctor has given probable reason of the death of the deceased. The cause of death has not been stated with certainty.

The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that as per the post mortem report, the employee had consumed the alcohol and, therefore, the claimants were not entitled to compensation needs to be repelled for the simple reason that the Act itself creates a distinction in the case of death of a workman found to have consumed liquor. Section 3(1) of the Act enjoins a duty upon the employer to pay compensation to the workman in the event of a death of an employee in the course of an employment with the exception made in the proviso to the Section. The employee is admittedly not covered by the said exception.

Learned Counsel for the respondents has brought to my notice a decision rendered by the Apex Court of the Shah Vs. Rajankutty, , wherein it has been held that the accident which resulted in the injury or death, must be connected with the employment and must arise out of it; there must be casual connection or association between the employment and the accidental injury. In the present case, it has been proved on record that the employee was on duty, guarding the forest and thus it is evident that the accident occurred in the course of the employment while on duty.

In my view, there is no scope for interference in the present appeal.

For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. I find no perversity or illegality in the award passed by the Court below.