Skip to content


P.C. Chunder and Co., Ltd. Vs. Ram Asis Ram Nonia - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.F.O.O. No. 51 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Cal336,(1953)IILLJ483Cal
ActsWorkmens Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 30; ;Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114
AppellantP.C. Chunder and Co., Ltd.
RespondentRam Asis Ram Nonia
Appellant AdvocateSasanka Bhusan Ghose, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateNalini Kanta Mukherjee, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....a sum of rs. 1500/- as compensation with certain costs.2. the case for the respondent was that the deceased workman was in the employment of the appellants as an electric mistry and that whilst he was following his employment on 1-10-1948, he was electrocuted and died as a result thereof. the respondent was the father of the deceased workman and a dependent.3. the only point in the case was whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. there can be no doubt i think that the man was electrocuted and killed whilst in the factory. but it is suggested that he was there for his own purposes and not for the purposes of his employers. the case for the applicant was that the deceased workman with others was working overtime and that he was carrying an electric light the.....
Judgment:

Harries, C.J.

1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation granting the dependents of the deceased a sum of Rs. 1500/- as compensation with certain costs.

2. The case for the respondent was that the deceased workman was in the employment of the appellants as an electric mistry and that whilst he was following his employment on 1-10-1948, he was electrocuted and died as a result thereof. The respondent was the father of the deceased workman and a dependent.

3. The only point in the case was whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. There can be no doubt I think that the man was electrocuted and killed whilst in the factory. But it is suggested that he was there for his own purposes and not for the purposes of his employers. The case for the applicant was that the deceased workman with others was working overtime and that he was carrying an electric light the plug of which had been fitted into a socket in the manager's room. Apparently there was some defect in the flex and the man was electrocuted. If that version be true, there can be no question whatsoever that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. The defence was that these men were not working overtime and witnesses were called to establish that fact. It was however admitted that a book was kept showing the overtime and that book was not produced. That book was a vital piece of evidence and the learned Commissioner was entitled to presume that as it had not been produced, if it had been produced it would not have assisted the appellants' case. Whether or not these men were working overtime is a pure question of fact. It is true that there was only one witness for the respondent and a number of witnesses for the appellants, but the learned Commissioner who saw and heard the witnesses was entitled, if he thought right, to accept the evidence for the respondent. The question was a pure question of fact and from such a finding there is no appeal, if the findings are based on evidence and further there was no misdirection in law on the part of the Commissioner in approaching the evidence.

4. Learned Advocate for the appellants has contended that the witness for the respondent was a workman who had been discharged and therefore that workman should not have been believed. How that is a matter of law is entirely beyond my understanding. It is a circumstance which the commissioner was bound to take into account in arriving at a finding of fact, but nothing more. Having regard to the fact that the one piece of evidence that mattered was not produced I am not surprised that the Commissioner came to the conclusion which he did.

5. Learned Advocate now suggests that an adjournment should have been given for production of this register. But it must have been obvious to anybody connected with this case that that register was the all important piece of evidence and much might happen to it if an adjournment was given for it to be produced.

6. There is no question of law whatsoever involved in this case, and upon the findings of fact which are supported by evidence it is clear that this deceased man met his death through accident arising out of and in the course of the employment and that being so he was entitled to compensation. There is no dispute as to the amount and therefore the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs, the hearing fee being assessed at three gold mohurs.

7. The injunction restraining payment out of the compensation is dissolved.

G.N. Das, J.

8. I agree.


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