NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. RAYAJIBHAI VAGHABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah appearing on behalf of appellant National Insurance Company Limited.

(2.) THE appellant Insurance Company has challenged the order passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Baroda in Workman Compensation Petition No. 58 of 1996 Exh. 60 dated 6th February 2008. The Commissioner has awarded Rs. 89,044/- as compensation with a direction to appellant to pay the same to the claimant. The Commissioner further directed to opponent Nos. 1 and 2 principal employer and contractor to pay amount of penalty Rs. 44,522/- and 6% interest from the date it fells due 10th September 1995 to the claimant with the cost of Rs. 1,000/ -.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Shah raised contention before this Court that learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated the fact that deceased Arvindbhai died due to electrocution while performing his natural evocation in his life i. e. while taking both. He was not died during the course of employment while working with the employer and there was no nexus with the performance of the duties of the deceased and accident occurred not only due to his official duties. On the date of accident, at about 7. 00 a. m. , his duty hours were not started and prior to point of time, accident occurred. The deceased had gone for bath near water cock of company compound and after taking bath when he tried to take his cloth, he came into contact of live electric cable lying on the grass and met with massive electric shock and due to electric shock, he succumbed to death on the spot in the compound of employer. The brother of deceased Gopalbhai vide Exh. 36 had admitted the fact that deceased was not doing the work at the time of accident. One Mr. Maganbhai Narsinhbhai who was examined vide Exh. 40 has made clear that he engaged employee and started the work. Thereafter, only attendance of workman was secured and after relieving from the work up till next date, they were not paid wages till the next morning till they report for work. He submitted that deceased has not received any injury during the course of employment or it arose out of the employment. There was no casual connection established between the death and employment of the deceased. He also submitted that following are substantial questions of law raised by appellant as mentioned in Para 9a, 9b and 9c which are quoted as under :