Case Note & Summary
The appellants, being the widow, minor daughter, and parents of deceased Prakash Madavi, filed an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 against the dismissal of their compensation claim by the Commissioner. Prakash was employed as a driver by respondent No.2 (owner of the car). On 31/05/2011, while driving the car, it met with an accident and turned turtle, resulting in his death. The appellants claimed that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The insurance company (respondent No.1) contended that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving. The owner (respondent No.2) alleged that Prakash's services had been terminated on 07/02/2011, and on the date of accident he took the car without permission and drove it in a drunken condition. The Commissioner dismissed the claim, holding that the deceased was not in employment and was driving under influence of alcohol. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the employer failed to prove termination as no termination letter or attendance register was produced. The court noted that the accident occurred while the deceased was driving the employer's vehicle, and even if he was drunk, that did not take the accident out of the course of employment. The court held that the death arose out of and in the course of employment. The appeal was allowed, the Commissioner's order was set aside, and compensation was awarded as per the Act with interest.
Headnote
A) Employees Compensation Act - Course of Employment - Death of Driver - The appellants, dependents of deceased driver, claimed compensation under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 for death in a car accident. The Commissioner dismissed the claim holding that the deceased was not in employment as his services were terminated and he was driving under influence of alcohol. The High Court held that the employer failed to prove termination and the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The court allowed the appeal and awarded compensation. (Paras 1-8) B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Termination of Employment - The employer alleged termination of the deceased driver prior to the accident but failed to produce any documentary evidence such as termination letter or attendance register. The court held that the burden to prove termination was on the employer and it was not discharged. (Paras 4-6) C) Employees Compensation Act - Drunkenness - Not a Bar - Even if the deceased was under influence of alcohol, the accident occurred while he was driving the employer's vehicle in the course of his employment. The court held that drunkenness alone does not take the accident out of the course of employment unless it amounts to a deliberate act. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death of a driver during an accident while driving his employer's vehicle, allegedly under the influence of alcohol and after alleged termination, arose out of and in the course of employment under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 22/01/2015 passed by the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act is set aside. The appellants are entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization. The respondent No.2 (owner) is directed to deposit the compensation amount within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Employer-employee relationship
- course of employment
- burden of proof
- termination of employment
- drunken driving
- compensation under Employees Compensation Act
