RYOTS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. BILAL BIBI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHAMMED Ibrahim was engaged as a driver in the rice mill section of the Respondent, namely, the Managing Director, Ryots' Agricultural Produce Co -operative Marketing Society, Mandya. On 16.3.1978 he met with an accident during the course of his duty arising out of his employment in the Respondent -factory. As a result of the said accident his right hand palm was irregularly crushed, as contended by the claimant. Immediately after the accident the Respondent took the injured person to the General Hospital, Mandya and he got him admitted there for treatment. In spite of necessary treatment the patient developed tetanus. Subsequently he died of tetanus on 3.4.1978. Hence, his legal heirs namely, wife and children made the application before the Commissioner for compensation. The claim was resisted by the employer. He contended that he was not liable to pay the compensation as the employee died of tetanus and not due to injury sustained in the accident. The Tribunal raised the following points as arising for its consideration: (1) Whether the death occurred to the deceased due to the accident? (2) If so, what quantum of compensation to be paid? After recording evidence and hearing the arguments the learned Commissioner found that the death was due to injury sustained in the accident and in that view he awarded compensation of Rs. 21,000/ - as per Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act. Aggrieved by the said award, the employer has preferred this appeal in this Court.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the Appellant strenuously urged before us that since it is clear that death occurred due to tetanus it cannot be said that the death was due to injury sustained in the accident. It is clear from the evidence on record that the injured was admitted into the hospital immediately after the accident. It was a Government Hospital. Proper care was taken. Since the hand was crushed, in spite of treatment given, he suddenly developed tetanus and died. It is obvious that tetanus developed because of the crush injury and it could not be prevented in spite of proper care and treatment. That being so, it is obvious that tetanus developed as a result of the injury sustained in the accident. If there was no crushing of palm, there was no question of patient developing tetanus at all. There is no other intervening factor in the case. Therefore, we are satisfied that the Commissioner was justified in holding that death was due to injury sustained in the accident in the course of the employment. Vide Jubeda Kom Moulasab v. Kansoor Group DPPPVSS 1981 ACJ 193 (Karnataka). That being so, we are constrained to hold that there is no merit in the appeal and we dismiss the same.