Madhya Pradesh High Court
Director vs Keshkali on 16 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 16 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 1291 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
1. DIRECTOR GEOLOGY AND MINING ARERA HILLS
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DY. DIRECTOR REGIONAL DIRECTORATE
GEOLOGY AND MINING NEAR ILLLIYAS ALI
PETROL PUMP DISTT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI ADITYA CHOUBEY - GOVT. ADVOCATE )
AND
1. DAMANI D/O LALLU KORI, AGED ABOUT 17
YEARS, R/O DHOBINA TANKI NEAR NAYA TALAB
DISTT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PAWAN S/O LATE KALLU KORI, AGED ABOUT 17
YEARS, R/O DHOBINA TANKI NEAR NAYA TALAB
DISTT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PRINCE S/O LATE LALLU KORI, AGED ABOUT 3
YEAR S , DHOBINA TANKI NEAR NAYA TALAB
DISTT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ALOK TIWARI - ADVOCATE )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This misc. appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923 has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated
04.03.2015 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour
Court Rewa in Case No. 73/WCA/13F.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the respondents/claimants filed an
application under Section 22 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act 1923") claiming compensation with interest
due to death of the deceased employee namely Late Shri Lallu Kori. It is
pleaded that they are the dependants of the deceased employee who was
working as a Choukidar with the present appellants. At the time of death he was
working at a camp situated in village Tala Tehsil Amarpatan District Satna. The
claimants also stated that on the date of incident i.e. on 07.01.2013 the
workman namely Lallu Kori during the course of employment fallen down and
sustained injuries, he got admitted in MGMH Hospital Rewa where he died. As
per the claimants, death occurred due to excessive work during the course of
employment. As per the claimants at the time of death the employee was aged
about 35 years was getting Rs.5,000/- per month and accordingly they claimed
compensation with interest.
3. The written statement was filed by the employer/present appellant by
denying the averments made in the claim taking stand therein that the deceased
employee was working in the department as casual labour. On the date of
incident 07.01.2013 he has worked from 10:30 to 5:00 pm and thereafter he left
the office to go to home but during the duty hours he was fit and healthy. After
completion of his duty while he wag going to his home with one Shri Manoj
Pandey on bi-cycle they they slept over the bridge and fell down in a river. Due
to drowning he succumb to death in a hospital where he got admitted after the
incident has taken place.
4. The specific stand taken by the employer that death did not occurred due
to accident taken place during the course of employment, therefore, claimants
are not entitled to get any compensation and claimed for rejection of the claim.
Trial court below framed two issues and recorded evidence of the parties.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/employer that the
onus lies upon the claimants to show that the death occurred during he course
of employment. There must be a casual connection between the injury and the
accident and the work done in the course of the employment but as per the
existing facts of the case, the death occurred due to drowning as the
workman fell down in the river after completing his duty and was returning to
home. As per the evidence adduced by the parties, death occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the bi-cycle which got dis-balanced and culminated the
accident due to felling down in the river causing death of the workman. The
Court below has ignored the statement of material witnesses namely, Manoj
Pandey. It is also submitted that the case of Malikarjuna G. Hiremath vs.
Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another (2009)
13 SCC 405 is squarely applied in this case. Therefore, it is prayed to allow
this appeal and set aside the order of court below.
6. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and and
prayed for rejection of this appeal.
7 . On the ground of admission following substantial question of law
formulated -
"i) Whether the court below was right in holding that the
death of deceased had occasioned arising out of or in
course of employment ?"
8 . Perusal of the record shows that the deceased Lallu Kori was
working under the employment of employer appellant of as Choukidar and he
was working at a camp situated in village Tala Tehsil Amarpatan District Satna.
As per the averments of claim petition on the date of incident i.e. on
07.01.2013 the deceased was during the course of employment fallen down and
sustained injuries got admitted in MGMH hospital, Rewa and then he died
during the treatment.
9. On perusal of evidence on record, it reveals that on the date of accident
the work between Podi and Bigodi village was on progress and deceased was
also engaged in that work as Choukidar.
10. It also reveals from the evidence on record that after completion of work
the deceased was coming from the site to the camp which is at the distance of 5
kms. and in between site to camp while riding on bi-cycle the accident took
place and deceased got injured. At the time of accident Manoj Kumar (NAW-2)
was accompanying the deceased, though Manoj Kumar (NAW-2) in his
statement states that the deceased was riding bi-cycle rashly and negligently but
he admits in his cross examination that he has given the statement (Ex.D/1) to
the effect that deceased Lallu Kori along with him was going on bi-cycle to the
camp, therefore, it is established that from the site the deceased was going to
the camp and during that the accident took place, since, the deceased was going
from site to camp therefore, it cannot be said in the view of that statement of
Manoj Kumar that accident is not arising out of the employment.
11. In case of Malikarjuna (Supra) the case revealed from the evidence
was that the deceased was employed as a driver. He went along with certain
passenger to a temple as per the direction of the employer but when the vehicle
reached to the destination the deceased went to the pond and while taking a
bath at a pit he slipped and fell down and drowned. Hon,ble the Apex Court
held that the deceased who was driving the vehicle on the direction of insured
had gone to the temple and was sitting on the steps of the pond then he slipped
and fell down and succumbed to death due to drowning. This is not sufficient
in view of settled legal position to fasten the liability either on the insurer or the
insured. However, in this case, the facts are different and the aforesaid case is
distinguishable on the facts as discussed hereinabove. In case United India
Insurance Company vs. Smt. Susheela 2004 ACJ 1518, it is held that
arising out of and in the course of employment is fell for consideration in
several judicial pronouncement and it is well settled that to the concept is
subject to the theory of notional extension of the employer's premises so as to
include an area which the workman passes and re-passes in going to and
leaving the actual work of place. There may be some reasonable extension in
both time and place and workman may be regarded as in the course of his
employment even though he has not reached or left his employer premises.
Relevant Para 10 of the judgment is being quoted below-
10...........
"As a rule the employment of a workman does not commence
until he has reached the place of employment and does not
continue when he has left the place of employment, the
journey to and from the place of employment being excluded.
It is now well-settled, however, that this is subject to the
theory of notional extension of the employer's premises so as
to include an area which the workman passes and repasses
in going to and in leaving the actual place of work. There
may he some reasonable extension in both time and place
and a workman may be regarded as in the course of his
employment even though he had not reached or had left his
employer's premises. The facts and circumstances of each
case will have to be examined very carefully in order to
determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course
of the employment of a workman keeping in view at all times
this theory of notional extension" "........
It is amply clear from the aforesaid citation that present case is squarely
falls within the expression arising out and of and in course of employment.
12. So far as the deceased being intoxicated at the time of occurrence is
concerned it is not supported by evidence on record as well as post mortem
report and it is also not found that the death of the death of the deceased was
out the expression of arising out of and in course of employment. It is also not
proved from the evidence on record that the occurrence was due to the
drowning is out of the aforesaid expression rather drowning was as a result of
workman's course of employment and the act of the deceased was not out of
the course of employment while he was going on bi-cycle towards camp from
the site.
13. Therefore, court below has on proper appreciation of evidence on
record has rightly awarded the amount in favour of the claimants. No
interference is warranted in the findings of the order of the court below.
Substantial question of law is answered affirmatively against the appellant.
14. Accordingly, impugned order dated 04.03.2015 passed by Commissioner
for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court Rewa in Case No. 73/WCA/13F
is affirmed and this appeal being devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Akm
