JYOTI & ORS. Vs. YOGESH AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - In proceedings under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, appellants' claim petition stands dismissed while noting that the FSL report reveals that the deceased was under the influence of liquor. Sec. 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 is reproduced in the impugned order, which shows that if an employee is found under the influence of drink, liquor, drugs, then he is not entitled to any compensation.

(2.) At the outset, learned counsel for appellant submits that Sec. 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 does not apply to the case of a death of an employee and relies upon Himachal Pradesh High Courts' decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tahira Begum and Others, 2008 ACJ 463 . It is pointed out that neither in the MLC nor in the Post-mortem Report, alcohol content in the blood of the deceased was detected and so, merely by relying upon FSL report, denial of compensation to appellant is bad in law. It is further submitted that Sec. 3 (1) (b) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 relates to injury case and not to a death case. So, it is contended by appellants' counsel that impugned order deserves to be set aside and claim petition ought to be allowed. Nothing else is urged on behalf of the appellants.

(3.) Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, the decision cited and the material on record, I find that Sec. 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 deals with employer's liability for compensation and this provision cannot be read in isolation as Sec. 10-A and Sec. 22-A of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 deal with cases of fatal accident. So, it cannot be said that the aforesaid Act does not apply to the case of a fatal accident of an employee.