Smt. Ram Rakhi Devi and others vs Sh. Kumar Kohli and others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—On June 7, 1977 Gabbar Singh, who was working as a Chowkidar in S. & K. Plastic Industries, Gurgaon was found lying dead in the premises of the said firm which was then under construction. The cause of death was electrocution. It is stated that there had been a storm during the night before as a result of which the electric pole had fallen and the deceased was electrocuted by the wires thereof.

A claim for compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act (1923) (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') was filed by Ram Rakhi Devi claiming herself to be the widowed mother of Gabbar Singh deceased, upon whom, she stated, she had been wholly dependent. This claim was negatived on the finding that Ram Rakhi Devi had failed to prove her relationship with the deceased and it was also held that the accident here had not been shown to have arisen in the course of the employment of the deceased.

No appearance has been put in on behalf of any of the respondents to seek to contest the claim of Ram Rakhi Devi, the present appellant. They were accordingly proceeded ex parte

On a reading of the evidence on record in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, neither of the findings recorded by the Commissioner appointed under the Act as referred to above can be sustained As regards the relationship of Ram Rakhi Devi with Gabbar Singh, deceased, there is the unrebutted testimony of AW. 5 Tarlok Singh to establish that Ram Rakhi Devi was the widowed mother of Gabbar Singh deceased It was his testimony that Gabbar Singh was his father''s younger brother''s son and Ram Rakhi Devi was the mother of Gabbar Singh This close relationship of this wit ness with the deceased clearly put him in the special position of knowing the relationship of the deceased with Ram Rakhi Devi. There is no material on record creating any doubt in this evidence There is, thus, no escape from the conclusion that Ram Rakhi Devi was the widowed mother of Gabbar Singh deceased.

The next question which calls for determination is whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment of Gabbar Singh, deceased. It is the testimony of R.W. 1 Kumar Kohli, respondent himself that Gabbar Singh had been employed as a Chowkidar and he had also been provided accomodation to live in the premises There was no other Chowkidar What is more, there was also a tube-well there with a 5 Horse-power motor which had an electric connection. As has been mentioned above, the evidence on record further shows that there had been storm during the night in the course of which the electric pole had fallen and it was with the wires thereof that the deceased had been electrocuted.

The word "accident" as was observed by She lat, J. in Bai Shakri Vs. New Manekchowk Mills Co. Ltd., generally means some unexpected event happening without design even though there may be negligence on the part of the workman. It is used in the popular and ordinary sense and means a mishap or an untoward event not expected or designed.

A similar view was expressed by C.J. Chagla, in Laxmibai Atmaram Vs. Chairman and Trustees, Bombay Port Trust, where it was held that the expression "accident" in S. 3 must be construed in its popular sense. It has been defined as an unlooked for mishap; an untoward event which is not expected or designed. What the Workmen''s Compensation Act intends to convey is what might be expressed as an accidental injury.

In his testimony the respondent Kumar Kohli had stated that the duty hours of the deceased were only from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. and that he had employed Gabbar Singh in order to keep a watchover the work of other labourers. He further stated that he had not appointed him as watchman for all the 24 hours in order to keep watch over the material lying in the premises and to look after the work of the labourers during day time. The suggestion being that the accident took place when he was not performing any of the functions for which he had been employed In the cross examination of the other witnesses it was sought to be stressed that the deceased was found to be bare-footed when electrocuted implying thereby some negligence on his own part which resulted in his death by electrocution.

This aspect of the case is clearly of no avail to the respondents. In Bhagubai Vs. General Manager, Central Railway, V.T., Bombay, the requirement laid down was that there must be a casual connection between the accident and the employment in order that the Court can say that the accident arose out of the employment of the deceased. The cause contemplated is the proximate cause and not any remote cause. If the employee in the course of his employment has to be in a particular place and by reason of his being in that particular place he has to face a peril and the accident is caused by reason of that peril which he has to face, then a casual connection is established between the accident and the employment.

It was further held that once the peril is established it is for the employer to show either that the peril was brought about by the employee himself or that he added or extended the peril or it was a peril personal to the employee alone.

In R.B. Moondra and Co. Vs. Mst. Bhanwari and Another, , the deceased was employed as a driver on the employer''s truck which was used for carrying petrol in a tank. In order to detect a suspected leak in the tank, the tank was partly filled with water and the deceased was asked by his employer to enter the tank to locate the site of the leak. When the deceased went into the tank he lighted a match in order to locate the leak. As a result he received burn injuries on account of which he later died. It was held that this was an accident arising out of the employment of the deceased and consequently his employers were liable to pay compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act. It was observed that the expression "arising out of employment" was not confined to the "nature of employment" but applied to the employment as such to its nature, its conditions, its obligations, and its incidents. To find, therefore, whether the death was caused by added peril, the relevant enquiry to make was whether the thing was within the sphere of employment and incidental to it, whether it was in the interest of the work of the employer and was simply done carelessly or negligently. If the answer to the above was in the affirmative, then the accident would be said to be out of and in the course of employment and the plea of added peril would fail. On the other hand, if the answer was in the negative and if it was found that thing was foreign the scope of employment that is, something to which the workman voluntarily exposed himself not about the business of the employer, but about his own business then it would not be out of employment and it would be a case of added peril, for which the employer cannot be held liable.

Coming back to the present case, the deceased being a chowkidar even if it be said that it was not his duty hours when the accident took place, there is no escape from the conclusion that if he was taking a round of the premises, he was acting in the interest of his employer. The requisite connection between the accident and his employment clearly stands established thereby to bring it within the ambit of the "course of his employment" The falling of the electric pole no doubt had him face a peril, but it was not a peril of his own creation or doing In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, there is no escape from the finding that the accident here arose out of and in the course of the employment of the deceased and consequently his employers are liable to pay compensation to the claimant Ram Rakhi Devi in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It stands established that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 100/ per month. These is no warrant for accepting that free board and lodging also formed part of his emoluments to hold that his total emoluments were Rs. 200/- per month. There is no clear evidence to establish this part of the case It must accordingly be taken that the deceased had been employed at a salary of Rs. 100/- and accordingly his widowed mother Ram Rakhi Devi is hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 11,520/- as compensation in accordance with the scale as set out in that table in Schedule I of the Act.

In the result an award for Rs. 11,520/- is passed in favour of Ram Rakhi Devi against the respondent. This appeal is accepted with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 300/-.