Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway vs Kanagambal

C.V. Govardhan, J.—This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Tiruchirappali, dated

12.6.1987 awarding a compensation of Rs. 23,100/- to the wife of the deceased, Kittappa, who died while discharge. his duties as an employee

under the Opposite Party.

The applicant in her application has claimed lump sum payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation alleging that her husband during the course

of his employment under the Opposite Party received personal injury on 8.5.1984 which resulted in his death.

The respondents in their counter have contended that the duty hours of the husband of the applicant were over by 24 hours on 7.5.1984 and he

left the duty and no injury was caused to him by any accident arising out of and in the course of the employment and, therefore, no compensation

can be granted.

On the above pleadings, an enquiry was held in W.C. Application No. 16 of 1986 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirappalli, who

has passed the order granting compensation of Rs. 23,100/- in favour of the applicant.

Aggrieved over the same, the respondent has come forward with this appeal.

It is not in dispute that the husband of the applicant was a pointsman employed under the respondent in Sikkal Railway Station. On the early

hours of 8.5.1984, he wasassaulted by some unknown personsand sustained the grievous injuries and he died subsequently on account of the

same. These facts are not in dispute. The Station Master of Sikkal had sent a telegram to the police stating that Kittappa, on duty pointsman, was

attacked by unknown persons at about 1.30 hours and sustained grievous injuries and the Station Master had requested the police to investigate.

The Station Master examined as second witness for the applicant has stated that the said telegram under Exh. A-1 was given by him. This telegram

establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that it was only during the course of his employment and on duty, the pointsman was attacked by some

unknown persons and it had resulted in his death. The oral evidence of AW 2 that the deceased was not on duty at the time of the accident has,

therefore, to be rejected on account of the fact that his earlier version in writing which has given by him before any deliberations has to be given

credence.

The only question that has to be considered is whether the injuries sustained by a workman by an unknown person would amount to an accident

arising out of and in the course of the employment. It has been decided in the decision in Satiya v. S.D.O., Public Works Department (Building and

Roads), Narsimhapur 1974 ACJ 431 , that murder is an accident from the point of view of the perso; who suffered from it and it is an untoward

event as defined in Section 3(1) of the Act. Therefore, sustaining injury while on duty and meeting his death subsequently has to be necessarily

considered as an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

In the decision of Bhagubai Vs. General Manager, Central Railway, V.T., Bombay, , it has been held as follows:

Once the proximate connection between the accident and the employment is established the applicant has discharged the burden and in this case

the proximate connection between the employment and the injury is the fact that the deceased was at particular spot in the course of his

employment and it was at that spot that he was assaulted and done to death.

After the above observation, it was held by the Bombay High Court that the applicant was entitled to compensation under the Workmen''s

Compensation Act. It was held in the decision in Superintendent Engineer, Parambikulam Altar Project, Pollachi v. Andammal 1983 ACJ 286 , as

follows:

The deceased had to be in the place where he was done to death in the course of his employment for discharging duties. By reason of his being in

the particular place, he had to face the peril and the accident resulting in his death was caused by reason of such peril. In such a situation there was

a causal connection between the accident and the employment.

When we consider these decisions referred to by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in his order, we have to necessarily hold that the husband of

the applicant was in Sikkal Railway Station on 8.5.1984 at about 1.30 a.m. when he was attacked by some unknown persons resulting in his death

and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to compensation. The Deputy Commissioner has calculated the compensation payable, taking the salary of

the deceased and his age into consideration. No material has been placed before me to hold that the amount fixed by the Deputy Commissioner is

erroneous. Therefore, I am of opinion that the order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Labour/Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation is

well-founded and does not call for any interference by this Court. In that view, I hold that the appeal is without merits and is liable to be dismissed

and is accordingly dismissed.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.