SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PARAMBIKULAM ALIAR PROJECT POLLACHI Vs. ANDAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal at the instance of the Superintending Engineer, Parambikulam Aliyar Project, against the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore, dated 18th June, 1980, in W. C. No. 31 of 1980, awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 18,000 to the respondent herein for the death of her husband. The deceased husband of the respondent, one Arulswami, was employed as a Laskar in the Ponneri branch canal of Udumalai canal between kilometres 12 and 15 and it was his duty to regulate the flow of water in the branch canal by operating upon the sluices and shutters under the directions of the Junior Engineer in charge of Udumalai canal. On 30th September, 1978, Arulswami addressed a letter to the Junior Engineer drawing his attention to the cutting of the canal bank near the left branch canal of Udumalai canal near survey No. 203, in East Thanthoni village at the instance of one Arumugha Gounder and stating that as a result of that it was difficult for men to walk along the bank and also to use cycles. Arulswami had also requested that suitable action should be taken regarding this. Again Arulswami had addressed another letter to the Junior Engineer informing him that the flow of water had been obstructed in the right branch canal and after removing the bricks in the bank, water had been made to overflow in Kannimar pond and therefrom the owners of survey Nos. 206 and 114 in Thanthoni village were irrigating their fields with water, with the result that the cultivators in the lower reaches of the canal had been affected besides resulting in damage to the canal bank. A personal inspection by the Junior Engineer had been requested for taking further action. While matters stood thus, on 13th October, 1978, Arulswami had met the Junior Engineer at 7-30 a. m. and informed him of what had happened and requested him to come in person and do the needful as some persons were obstructing him in the discharge of his duties. Thereupon, the Junior Engineer directed Arulswami to do his duty and assured him that he would come there in person and pursuant to the oral orders of the Junior Engineer, Arulswami went about performing his duty in the matter of regulating the water in the canal by opening and closing the shutters and sluices, and finally, when he went to the sluice where there was some trouble referred to earlier, he was done to death. Alleging that Arulswami met with his death in the course of his employment and also out of his employment and that he was earning a sum of Rs. 210 per mensem at the time of his death, the respondent herein filed W.C. No. 31 of 1980 before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore, praying for payment of compensation in a sum of Rs. 18,000.

(2.) THIS application was resisted by the appellant herein on the ground that though the deceased Arulswami was employed by the department as a Laskar and he had also put in more than 7-1/2 years of service on the date of his death on 13th October, 1978, Arulswami was found floating in the canal and on a complaint made to the police since some injuries were found on his head, it was reported that it was a case of accidental death and that the claim for compensation in a sum of Rs. 18,000 made by the respondent alone without disclosing the existence of the children, cannot be entertained.

(3.) IN this case, the deceased had to be in the place where he was done to death in the course of his employment for discharging his duties. By reason of his being in the particular place, he had to face the indignant agriculturists who had unauthorisedly diverted the water from the canal and about whom he had made a complaint to the Junior Engineer and by reason of that, the deceased had to face a peril and the accident resulting in his death was caused by reason of such peril which the deceased was obliged to face. IN such a situation, there was a causal connection between the accident and the employment and the deceased did not face any peril which was something personal to him in the sense that any other person in the place of the deceased would also have to face the same peril at the hands of the indignant agriculturists who had unauthorisedly taken water from the canal. IN other words, the accident had taken place out of a peril which was very closely and intimately linked up with the performance of the duties of the deceased and thereby a causal connection is established between the employment and the accident. INdeed, in M. Mackenzie v. I.M. Issak1, referred to earlier, the following test laid down by Lord Sumner in Lancashire and Yorkshire Rly. Co. v. Highley2, has been approved-"There is, however, in my opinion, one test which is always at any rate applicable, because it arises upon the very words of the Statute, and it is generally of some real assistance. It is this: Was it part of the injured person's employment to hazard, to suffer or to do that which caused his injury?. If yes, the accident arose out of his employment. If nay, it did not, because, what was not part of the employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do, cannot well be the cause of an accident arising out of the employment. To ask if the cause of this was within the sphere of the employment or was one of the ordinary risks of the employment, or reasonably incidental to the employment, or conversely was an added peril and outside the sphere of the employment, are all different ways of asking whether it was a part of his employment, that the workman should have acted as he was acting, or should have been in the position in which he was, whereby in the course of that employment he sustained injury."Applying the aforesaid test, in this case, it is clear that the injury sustained by the deceased was (sic) connected with his work and there was necessary nexus between the work and the injury resulting in his death. It has also to be remembered that but for the employment of the deceased he would not have been at the place where the accident happened and causal and proximate connection between the accident and the employment is also established. There is no evidence in this case to indicate that by any action on his part the deceased either added to the peril or otherwise enlarged it and under these circumstances, it has to be held on the uncontradicted testimony of the respondent that the deceased met with his death only as a result of an acci4ent which arose out of and also in the course of employment under the appellant and therefore, the appellant was liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. No point was raised touching upon the quantum of compensation and hence the award of Rs. 18,000 to the respondent has to be maintained.