Skip to content


R.B. Raghunath Singh and Co. Vs. Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act and Anr. (10.11.1959 - APHC) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1960)ILLJ598AP
AppellantR.B. Raghunath Singh and Co.
RespondentCommissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act and Anr.
Excerpt:
- - in order to disentitle the hairs from claiming the benefit of the act it must be clearly established that the illness was due to the negligence or wilful act of the deceased so as to constitute a break in the chain of causation that has resulted in the death......by the widow the two questiona raised were whether the deceased was a workman as defined in the workmen's compensation act; and whether the death was the direct cause of the injuries, which the workman had received in the course of the employment, mias amina naqvi, on behalf of the appellant, has argued that the deceased waa a casual worker and therefore not an employee to justify a claim under the workmen's compensation act. in support of her contention the relies oil in re workmen's compensation of jaglipathan 161 i.e. 992 and mahtwa yin v. maung the hnin 192 i.c. 728. in order to take advantage of the authorities it must be established that there was no relation of employee and employer between the deceased and the employer; and admittedly there is in this case no evidence of any.....
Judgment:

M.A. Ansari, J.

1. This is under Section 30 of the Indian Workmen's Compensation Act, and the appellant seeks to vary the Commissioner's award allowing the widow Rs. 1,800 due to her husband's having died because of injuries. It is not disputed that the deceased Rajammallu Veerayya was a ' hamal' transporting for the appellant shahbad stones at the rate of I.G. Rs. 8 per one thousand maunds, and coal for I.G. Rs. 9 per thousand maunda. On 25 September 1953, while unloading shahbad Btoije, the deceased received an injury on his left calf. He was treated as an outpatient in King Edward Memorial Hospital, Secunderabad, and did not attend to his usual work from 26 September 1953 to 5 October 1953, The next day he attended and thereafter was absent. On 12 October 1953 he was admitted at the Isolation Hospital, Lingampalli, because he had developed tetanus and he remained an inpatient in the said hospital till 16 October 1953. He then left, but died on 17 October 1953. In the claim by the widow the two questiona raised were whether the deceased was a workman as defined in the Workmen's Compensation Act; and whether the death was the direct cause of the injuries, which the workman had received in the course of the employment, Mias Amina Naqvi, on behalf of the appellant, has argued that the deceased waa a casual worker and therefore not an employee to justify a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In support of her contention the relies oil In re Workmen's Compensation of Jaglipathan 161 i.e. 992 and Mahtwa Yin v. Maung the Hnin 192 I.C. 728. In order to take advantage of the authorities it must be established that there was no relation of employee and employer between the deceased and the employer; and admittedly there is in this case no evidence of any contract In favour of a third person, through which the deceased could come to do the work of transporting goods for the appellant. There is, therefore, employment; and the only question to be decided is whether it be of casual nature. If the appellant's record shows the deceased being marked absent on particular dates during the period of the illness, it would mean that the employment was regular. The award speaks about gaps when the deceased did not attend which would not be possible unless the registers showed them: and the registers would not show unless the person was regularly employed. Therefore the plea of the deceased being a casual labourer fails, it was next argued that the death was not the direct cause of the injury, which the employee had received. In order to disentitle the hairs from claiming the benefit of the Act it must be clearly established that the illness was due to the negligence or wilful act of the deceased so as to constitute a break in the chain of causation that has resulted in the death. In this con any use. The clerk, who proves the entry in the register of outpatients of the king Edward Memorial Hospital, cannot establish negligence or wilful default on the part of the deceased. The position would have been different, had the doctor who attended on him been produced. The evidence of the doctor of the Isolation Hospital is hardly material because tetanus had then set In. In other words, we do not think there is sufficient evidence on record to show negligence or wilful default on the part of the deceased in order to exonerate the appellant from the liability of compensating heirs of the employee, who admittedly was injured while lifting weight for the appellant. In these circumstances, there is no force in this appeal, which is dismissed with costs to the widow. The respondent will now be entitled to draw the money deposited with the Commissioner pending the result of this appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //