Death or injury resulting from negligence of a worker in the course of employment is no reason to deny compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, the Supreme Court asserted in the case, Jaya Biswal vs IFFCO Tokio General Insurance. Negligence is a factor under the Motor Vehicles Act, but not relevant in the Employees Compensation Act. In this case, a young truck driver died in an accident. His dependants approached the Commissioner of Compensation. He awarded Rs 10.75 lakh. The insurance company appealed to the Odisha high court. It reduced the compensation by half, "in the interest of justice". The parents appealed to the Supreme Court. It castigated the high court for reducing the amount by merely claiming that it was in the interest of justice. The apex court awarded Rs 11 lakh with 12 per cent interest. Moreover, the court stated that "in light of the unnecessary litigation and hardship of the dependants in spending on litigation to get the compensation we deem it fit to award them Rs 25,000 as costs."
Thus, the E.C. Act is a social welfare legislation meant to benefit the workers and their dependents in case of death of workman due to accident caused during and in the course of employment should be construed as such. In the case of Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation & Anr. v. Francis De Costa & Anr. a Three Judge Bench of this Court held as under:
“In the case of Dover Navigation Company Limited v. Isabella Craig 1940 A.C. 190, it was observed by Lord Wright that -
Nothing could be simpler than the words "arising out of and in the course of the employment." It is clear that there are two conditions to be fulfilled. What arises "in the course of the employment is to be distinguished from what arises "out of the employment." The former words relate to time conditioned by reference to the man's service, the latter to causality. Not every accident which occurs to a man during the time when he is on his employment, that is directly or indirectly engaged on what he is employed to do, gives a claim to compensation unless it also arises out of the employment. Hence the section imports a distinction which it does not define. The language is simple and unqualified.
Although the facts of this case are quite dissimilar, the principles laid down in this case, are instructive and should be borne in mind. In order to succeed, it has to be proved by the employee that (1) there was an accident, (2) the accident had a causal connection with the employment and (3) the accident must have been suffered in course of employment.”
19. The liability of the employer, thus, arises, when the workman sustains injuries in an accident which arises out of and in the course of his employment.
21. The next contention which needs to be dispelled is that the appellants are not entitled to any compensation because the deceased died as a result of his own negligence. We are unable to agree with the same. Section 3 of the E.C. Act does not create any exception of the kind, which permits the employer to avoid his liability if there was negligence on part of the workman.
It has been held by various High Courts that mere negligence does not disentitle a workman to compensation. Lord Atkin in the case of Harris v. Assosciated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd.10observed as under: "Once you have found the work which he is seeking to be within his employment the question of negligence, great or small, is irrelevant and no amount of negligence in doing an employment job can change the workman's action into a non-employment job ... In my opinion if a workman is doing an act which is within the scope of his employment in a way which is negligent in any degree and is injured by a risk incurred only by that way of doing it he is entitled to compensation." The above reasoning has been subsequently adopted by several High Courts. In the case of Janaki Ammal v. Divisional Engineer11,the High Court of Madras held as under: “Men who are employed to work in 10 1939 AC 71 11 (1956) 2 LLJ 233 Page 21 21 factories and elsewhere are human beings, not machines. They are subject to human imperfections. No man can be expected to work without ever allowing his attention to wander, without ever making a mistake, or slip, without at some period in his career being momentarily careless. Imperfections of this and the like nature form the ordinary hazards of employment and bring a case of this kind within the meaning of the Act.” While no negligence on part of the deceased has been made out from the facts of the instant case as he was merely trying his best to stop the truck from moving unmanned, even if there were negligence on his part, it would not disentitle his dependents from claiming compensation under the Act.
Thus, the E.C. Act is a social welfare legislation meant to benefit the workers and their dependents in case of death of workman due to accident caused during and in the course of employment should be construed as such. In the case of Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation & Anr. v. Francis De Costa & Anr. a Three Judge Bench of this Court held as under:
“In the case of Dover Navigation Company Limited v. Isabella Craig 1940 A.C. 190, it was observed by Lord Wright that -
Nothing could be simpler than the words "arising out of and in the course of the employment." It is clear that there are two conditions to be fulfilled. What arises "in the course of the employment is to be distinguished from what arises "out of the employment." The former words relate to time conditioned by reference to the man's service, the latter to causality. Not every accident which occurs to a man during the time when he is on his employment, that is directly or indirectly engaged on what he is employed to do, gives a claim to compensation unless it also arises out of the employment. Hence the section imports a distinction which it does not define. The language is simple and unqualified.
Although the facts of this case are quite dissimilar, the principles laid down in this case, are instructive and should be borne in mind. In order to succeed, it has to be proved by the employee that (1) there was an accident, (2) the accident had a causal connection with the employment and (3) the accident must have been suffered in course of employment.”
19. The liability of the employer, thus, arises, when the workman sustains injuries in an accident which arises out of and in the course of his employment.
21. The next contention which needs to be dispelled is that the appellants are not entitled to any compensation because the deceased died as a result of his own negligence. We are unable to agree with the same. Section 3 of the E.C. Act does not create any exception of the kind, which permits the employer to avoid his liability if there was negligence on part of the workman.
It has been held by various High Courts that mere negligence does not disentitle a workman to compensation. Lord Atkin in the case of Harris v. Assosciated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd.10observed as under: "Once you have found the work which he is seeking to be within his employment the question of negligence, great or small, is irrelevant and no amount of negligence in doing an employment job can change the workman's action into a non-employment job ... In my opinion if a workman is doing an act which is within the scope of his employment in a way which is negligent in any degree and is injured by a risk incurred only by that way of doing it he is entitled to compensation." The above reasoning has been subsequently adopted by several High Courts. In the case of Janaki Ammal v. Divisional Engineer11,the High Court of Madras held as under: “Men who are employed to work in 10 1939 AC 71 11 (1956) 2 LLJ 233 Page 21 21 factories and elsewhere are human beings, not machines. They are subject to human imperfections. No man can be expected to work without ever allowing his attention to wander, without ever making a mistake, or slip, without at some period in his career being momentarily careless. Imperfections of this and the like nature form the ordinary hazards of employment and bring a case of this kind within the meaning of the Act.” While no negligence on part of the deceased has been made out from the facts of the instant case as he was merely trying his best to stop the truck from moving unmanned, even if there were negligence on his part, it would not disentitle his dependents from claiming compensation under the Act.
Thank you for some other informative website. The place else may just I get that kind of information written in such a perfect method? I have a venture that I am simply now running on, and I’ve been at the glance out for such info.疏忽賠償
ReplyDelete