Case Note & Summary
The present First Appeal was filed by the original defendant, Faridaben Naruddinbhai Jambughodawala, challenging the judgment and award dated 20.10.2008 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Labour Court, Dahod, in Workmen Compensation Application No.92 of 2008 (Old No.26 of 2001). The claimants, Shabanabibi Iqbalbhai Lakhara and others, filed the claim application stating that the deceased Iqbal Fakir Muhammad Shaikh was a driver of vehicle No.GJ-20-A-742 owned by opponent No.1, the appellant. The deceased was in the employment of opponent No.1 and there existed a relationship of employee and employer. On 14.2.2001, the deceased, upon instructions of opponent No.1, was proceeding towards Ahmedabad in the aforesaid vehicle and on a return journey near village Tuva, the vehicle turned turtled and dashed with a tree, resulting in serious injuries to the employee and ultimately the deceased expired. The claimants contended that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, but the opponent No.1 did not deposit compensation as envisaged under the Workmen's Compensation Act, leading to the filing of the claim application. The appellant appeared and filed a written statement at Exhibit 37, admitting that the deceased was in the employment of the appellant and was drawing a salary of Rs.2,000/- per month. However, the appellant denied liability on the ground that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The learned Commissioner allowed the claim application and awarded compensation. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant preferred the present appeal. The court heard learned advocate Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi for the appellant and learned advocate Ms. Kirti S. Pathak for the respondent No.3. The court examined the evidence on record and found that the claimants failed to prove that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The court held that the burden of proof lies on the claimants to establish the nexus between employment and accident. The court further held that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment as the driver was not on duty at the time of the accident. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and award, and dismissed the claim application.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - 'Arising out of and in the course of employment' - Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The court examined whether the death of a driver occurred during the course of employment - Held that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment as the driver was not on duty at the time of the accident, and the employer is not liable (Paras 5-10). B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The claimants failed to prove that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment - The employer admitted employment but denied liability - Held that the burden lies on the claimants to establish the nexus between employment and accident (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the accident resulting in the death of the employee arose out of and in the course of employment, and whether the employer is liable to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and award dated 20.10.2008 set aside. Claim application dismissed.
Law Points
- Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 3
- 'arising out of and in the course of employment'
- burden of proof
- contributory negligence
- employer's liability
