Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ganesha, proprietor of Ganesha Engineering Works, challenged the judgment and award dated 29.11.2021 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (Commissioner) in ECA No.1/2019, which awarded compensation of Rs.7,49,056/- with interest at 12% p.a. to the respondent, Rahamathulla, a workman. The respondent claimed that on 20.12.2018, while returning from work at about 8:30 p.m., he was hit by a vehicle near a petrol bunk, sustaining injuries. He alleged that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. The appellant denied the claim, asserting that the respondent had left the workshop at 6:00 p.m. and the accident occurred later at a different location, not in the course of employment. The Commissioner, relying on the respondent's testimony and the absence of contrary evidence, held that the accident occurred during the course of employment and awarded compensation. The appellant appealed under Section 30(1) of the Act. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the respondent himself admitted in cross-examination that he had left the workshop at 6:00 p.m. and the accident occurred at 8:30 p.m. near a petrol bunk, which was not on the direct route from the workshop to his residence. The court held that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment, as the workman was not under the employer's control or performing any duty at the time. The Commissioner's finding was perverse and based on no evidence. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and award, and dismissed the claim petition. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Employee Compensation - Course of Employment - Section 3 Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 - Injury after work hours and away from workplace - The workman alleged injury while returning from work, but evidence showed he had left the workshop earlier and the accident occurred at 8:30 p.m. near a petrol bunk, not on the direct route. The court held that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment as the workman was not under the employer's control or performing any duty at the time. The Commissioner's finding was perverse and based on no evidence. (Paras 6-10) B) Employee Compensation - Burden of Proof - Section 3 Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 - The claimant must prove that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. Mere presence on the road after work hours does not satisfy the requirement. The court found that the workman failed to discharge this burden, and the Commissioner erred in shifting the burden to the employer. (Paras 8-10) C) Employee Compensation - Perverse Finding - Section 30(1) Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 - The appellate court can interfere if the finding of the Commissioner is perverse or based on no evidence. Here, the Commissioner's conclusion that the accident occurred during the course of employment was unsupported by evidence and contrary to the workman's own testimony. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the injury sustained by the respondent-workman on 20.12.2018 at 8:30 p.m. near a petrol bunk, after leaving the appellant's workshop, arose out of and in the course of his employment under Section 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 29.11.2021 passed in ECA No.1/2019 by the Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, Hunsur, is set aside. The claim petition in ECA No.1/2019 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Employer's liability under Employee's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 3 requires injury to arise out of and in the course of employment
- accident occurring after work hours and away from workplace is not in the course of employment
- burden of proof on claimant to establish nexus
- no vicarious liability for acts outside employment scope.
