Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, against the judgment and order dated 11/3/2010 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Buldhana, in Workmen's Compensation Application (F) No. 4 of 2006. The respondents No. 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of deceased Dilip Arakh, who was employed as a driver with the appellant. On 06/07/2005, while driving a vehicle bearing registration No. MH29/C283, carrying doctors and officers of the appellant, the vehicle dashed against a roadside tree near Pimpalshendi Shiwar at about 7.30 p.m. The deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to them. The respondents filed a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, contending that the accident occurred during the course of employment and arose out of it. The appellant opposed the claim, alleging contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and that the owner of the vehicle (respondent No.5) was a necessary party. The Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of application. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove contributory negligence as no evidence was led to show that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving. The court also rejected the ground of non-joinder, as the appellant was the employer and the vehicle was under its control. The court upheld the Commissioner's finding that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Employer's Liability - Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Death of Driver in Motor Accident - The court held that the employer failed to prove contributory negligence of the deceased driver, as no evidence was led to show that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving. The accident occurred during the course of employment and arose out of employment, hence the employer is liable to pay compensation. (Paras 1-13) B) Workmen's Compensation - Impleadment of Parties - Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Non-joinder of Owner - The court held that the appellant (employer) cannot raise the ground of non-joinder of the owner of the vehicle as a necessary party, as the appellant itself was the employer and the vehicle was under its control. The Commissioner rightly rejected the application for impleadment. (Paras 1-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation erred in awarding compensation to the claimants despite alleged contributory negligence of the deceased driver and non-joinder of the owner of the vehicle?
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The judgment and order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Buldhana, dated 11/3/2010, is upheld.
Law Points
- Workmen's Compensation
- Employer's Liability
- Contributory Negligence
- Burden of Proof
- Impleadment of Parties
