VARKEYACHAN Vs. THOMMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent's son Varkey was a workman under the appellant. On 3rd May 1971 he died of stab injuries he received at the gate of the appellant's saw mill where he was employed to do odd jobs. That day there was some labour unrest in the mill. Some of Varkey's work fellows refusing to work had assembled at the gate from the morning. They were shouting slogans and the situation was tense. Varkey was sent out to a nearby tea shop in the first instance to fetch two glasses of tea for Anto and Vakkachan, the son and the nephew of the appellant, who were inside the mill and a second time to return the tea glasses. While he was coming back from the tea shop after returning the glasses Anto was on his way towards the road on a motor cycle. The motor cycle dashed against one of the workmen assembled at the gate, one Pappan. He fell down Varkey who was at the gate when Pappan fell down was helping Pappan to rise up when Vakkachan's stab fell on Varkey. Vakkachan had by this time come to the gate whereupon a scuffle ensued between him on the one side and the striking workmen on the other.

(2.) It is contended that the injury being an intentional injury the same cannot be said to have been caused by an accident. It is by now well settled that the term 'accident' for the purpose of the law relating to compensation for personal injuries sustained by workmen and the employer's liability in that behalf, includes any injury which is not designed by the workman himself, and it is of no consequence that the injury was designed and intended by the person inflicting the same. In Nisbet v. Rayne and Burn (1910 (2) KB 689) where a cashier travelling in a train with a large sum of money intended for payment to his employer's workmen was robbed and murdered the Court of Appeal held the murder was an accident from the point of cashier and therefore it was an accident within the meaning of that term in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. Similarly in Trim Joint District School Board of Management v. Kelly ( 1914 AC 667 ) where an assistant master at an industrial school was assaulted and killed by two of the pupils while the assistant master was performing his duties, the House of Lords held that his death was caused by an accident for the purpose of the same statute. Viscount Haldane L. C. pointed out that the meaning of the term 'accident' would vary according as the context varies, and as instances mentioned criminal jurisprudence where crime and accident are sharply divided by the presence or absence of mens rea and the law of marine insurance where the maxim: In jure non remots causa sed proxima spectatur (In law the proximate, and not the remote, cause is to be regarded) applies. The learned lord Chancellor said: -

(3.) The findings of facts entered leave no room for doubt that Varkey sustained the stab injury while he was returning to the mill from the tea shop after executing his second errand of giving back the glasses at the tea shop. The accident arose in the course of Varkey's employment.