United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Anusuya and Others

N. Kirubakaran, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award of Rs. 3,02,332/- for the death of one Siva, working as a Cleaner under the second respondent herein in his lorry bearing Registration No. KA-07-1271.

On 17.09.2002, the deceased Siva was loading rig rods in the lorry, at that time, he touched the electric welding wire and got electrocuted and thrown away. Due to which, he was severely injured and he died on the way to the hospital. Therefore, claim petition. On contest, the Workmen Commissioner for compensation found that the accident occurred during the course of the employment and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,02,332/- as compensation. The said award is being challenged before this Court.

The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

"(i) Whether the learned Commissioner is right in holding that the death of the said Siva occurred during and in the course of employment, especially when Ex. P.2 (post mortem certificate) revealed that only fingers were electrocuted. However on the contrary, Ex. P.1 (F.I.R.) reveals that the deceased had got electrocuted by touching the earth wire with his right leg?

(ii) Whether the learned Commissioner is right in holding that there is an employer-employee relationship between the deceased Siva and the second respondent herein and whether the first respondent had discharged her burden of proving the employment of the deceased?

(iii) Whether the learned Commissioner is right in holding that first respondent was earning a sum of Rs. 2,767.72/- per month, especially when no documents were filed to prove the income?"

No doubt as rightly pointed out by Mr. S. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Ex. P.1, F.I.R. revealed that the deceased got electrocuted by touching the earth wire with his right leg. However, in Ex. P2, Post mortem Certificate, it has been stated that only fingers were electrocuted. Therefore, the Insurance Company examined R.W.1 Doctor in this regard. R.W.1 deposed when a person got electrocuted, he would be thrown out and the injuries would occur on the part of the body which touches the wire after thrown out and therefore, the body which initially touched the electric wire might not got any injury. When R.W.1 himself had not categorically stated that the injury would be caused only on the part of the body, which got electrocuted, it is not possible to believe the contention of the appellant. The evidence of R.W.1 is not enough to come to the conclusion that the accident did not occur as contented by the first respondent/claimant. That apart, the original employer/second respondent did not contest the matter and therefore, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the manner of the accident had been accepted by the owner. When a person died due to electrocution, the appellant cannot avoid the liability based on some inconsistencies in the documents here and there and which would not materially affect the case of the first respondent. Therefore, the question of law one is answered against the appellant.

When P.W.1 categorically stated that the deceased was working under the second respondent and the second respondent did not contest the matter and in the absence of any contra evidence by the appellant, the Tribunal rightly held that an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and that the second respondent was rightly discharged and that the relationship was also proved and that there was no contra evidence adduced by the appellant to contradict P.W.1''s evidence. Therefore, the finding that there was an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the second respondent stands confirmed. The second question of law is answered against the appellant.

For the same reason, the third question of law is also answered against the appellant as there is no contra evidence adduced by the appellant regarding employment or the monthly salary as spoken by P.W.1.

In view of the above, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Since the appeal is dismissed, the amount already deposited by the appellant shall be withdrawn by the 1st respondent.