Kerala High Court
Philomina vs The Manager,Chembra Estate,Meppadi ... on 8 September, 2025
2025:KER:66675
MFA (ECC) No.196 OF 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 17TH BHADRA, 1947
MFA (ECC) NO. 196 OF 2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.06.2010 IN WCC NO.190 OF
2002 OF THE COURT OF COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION &
DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KANNUR
APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS:
1 PHILOMINA
VADAKKANCHERY VEEDU,
ERUMAKOLLY NO.II,
KOTTAPPADI,
MEPPADI POST.
2 AUGUSTINE SO.LATE ANTHONY.
3 REENA DO.LATE ANTHONY.
BY ADV SMT.CELINE JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES:
1 THE MANAGER,
CHEMBRA ESTATE,
MEPPADI POST
CHEMBRA ESTATE,
MEPPADI POST.
Pin 673577
2025:KER:66675
MFA (ECC) No.196 OF 2010
2
2 GEORGE POTHEN PARTNER
TME LIMITED,
VELLARAMKUNNU,
KALPETTA POST.
Pin 673121
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, M.G.T. BUILDING,
KALPETTA NORTH.
Pin 673122
4 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD., BRANCH OFFICE,
NILAMBUR.
Pin 679329
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.K.MOIDEEN KUTTY
SRI.E.V.BABYCHAN
SHRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
SHRI.M.RISHIKESH SHENOY
SHRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY
THIS MFA (ECC) HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 08.09.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:66675
MFA (ECC) No.196 OF 2010
3
JUDGMENT
1. The Appellants are the Applicants before the Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner. They are the wife and
children of one Anthony, who died in the accident. They
claimed compensation before the Commissioner, alleging
that the death happened arising out of and in the course
of the employment under the 1st Opposite Party, the
Manager, Chembra Estate.
2. The Commissioner dismissed the Application for
compensation, finding that the accident arose not out of
and during the course of employment. This Court
admitted the appeal, formulating substantial questions of
law.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Smt.
Celine Joseph, the learned counsel for the 1st
2025:KER:66675
MFA (ECC) No.196 OF 2010
respondent, Sri. T.K. Saidalikutty, the learned counsel for
the 3rd respondent, Sri. Lal K. Joseph and the learned
counsel for the 4th respondent, Sri. P.K. Manoj Kumar.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that
the deceased suffered serious burn injury on account of
the fall of a kerosene lamp inside the lane building
provided by the 1st opposite party in connection with the
employment for resting of the employee. In such a case,
there is a causal connection between the accident and
the employment. The learned counsel relied on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manju Sarkar
and Others v. Mabish Miah and Others [2014 ACJ
1927], the decision of the Karnataka High Court in
Punyamurthy N.L. v. Meenakshamma [2022 KHC
4996], the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
2025:KER:66675
MFA (ECC) No.196 OF 2010
Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. Gara Pedma and
Another [2022 KHC 2329] and the decision of this Court
in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Shahina [2017
(4) KLT 736] in support of his contentions. The learned
Counsel further contended that the Commissioner acted
illegally in dismissing the Application for amendment to
correct the date of the accident and death mistakenly
stated in the Application.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1 st
respondent submitted that there is no evidence before
the Commissioner to prove the employer-employee
relationship between the deceased and the 1st opposite
party. If it is found that the accident arose out of and in
the course of the employment, every case of death, and
even suicide, inside the quarters could be termed as a
2025:KER:66675
MFA (ECC) No.196 OF 2010
death arising out of and in the course of the employment.
6. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that
there is a specific averment in the Application that the
deceased was resting in the house after completing the
duty. In such a case, there could not be any notional
extension of employment. The learned counsel further
contended that it is for the 4th respondent/ Insurance
Company to discharge the liability in the event it is found
that the death arose out of and in the course of the
employment and the applicants are entitled to get
compensation.
7. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent contended
that there was no employer-employee relationship
between the deceased and the 1st opposite party and it
could not be said that the accident happened in the
2025:KER:66675
MFA (ECC) No.196 OF 2010
course of employment.
8. I have considered the rival contentions.
9. The accident and the death of the deceased are admitted
by the parties. Of course, while making the averments in
the Application, the Applicants committed mistake in
stating the correct date of the accident and death. The
dates of the accident and death were mistakenly stated
as 27.12.1999 and 5.3.2000, whereas the correct dates
were 27.12.1998 and 5.3.1999. Even assuming that the
applicant had stated the correct dates of accident and
death, I am of the view that, in view of the admitted facts
regarding the nature of the accident, it could not be said
that the accident arose out of and in the course of
employment. Going by the case of the Applicants, after
completing the duty, the deceased was resting in the
2025:KER:66675
MFA (ECC) No.196 OF 2010
accommodation provided by the 1st opposite party. The
deceased suffered a burn injury, which resulted in his
death, when the kerosene lamp fell down accidentally. In
such case, it could not be said that there is a notional
extension of employment covering the accident. The
accident occurred not on account of the action of any
third party and during the employment or while coming to
the employment or going back from employment. Merely
because the accident happened within the premises
provided by the 1st opposite party, it could not be said
that the accident arose out of and in the course of
employment.
10.The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the
appellants are clearly distinguishable. In the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manju Sarkar (supra), the
2025:KER:66675
MFA (ECC) No.196 OF 2010
accident happened to a driver while the unloading work
from the vehicle was progressing and he was away from
the vehicle. In such case, it was in the course of his
employment as a driver. In the case of Punyamurthy N.L.
(supra) and Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. (supra), the
employee suffered a heart attack during the course of
employment and it was found that the death was during the
course of employment. Such a factual situation is not
available in the present case. In the decision of this Court in
National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), this Court
held that if the accident has occurred on account of the risk
which is an incident of employment, it has to be held that
the accident has arisen out of the employment and in the
course of employment. In the present case, the accident
happened not on account of any risk of the employment but
2025:KER:66675
MFA (ECC) No.196 OF 2010
on account of the accidental fall of a kerosene lamp on the
deceased while he was resting in the lane building. Hence,
I am of the view that the Commissioner rightly found that
the accident happened not out of and in the course of
employment and dismissed the claim for compensation.
The substantial questions of law are answered against the
appellants.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
sms
