MUNSHI AND COMPANY Vs. YESHWANT TUKARAM TELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by an employer against the award of compensation to one of his workmen in respect of an injury suffered in warehouse in Prince's Dock at the time of the Bombay Explosion of April 14, 1944. The facts are not in dispute. The workman was employed in a godown. As the result of the explosion the wall suddenly collapsed, and a hot plate of metal got into what was left of the godown and hit the workman's leg. As a result of this injury his leg was amputated. His disability was assessed at 60 per cent. , and he was awarded altogether Rs. 1,512 by way of compensation and an additional Rs. 4 for court-fee charges.

(2.) IT is to be noted that after the explosion the Government of India set up a Claims Commission and the applicant appeared before the Claims Commission. He was awarded by them Rs. 2,280 in respect of his injury, but that sum was made subject to a deduction of the amount awarded to him in the proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The fact of the Claims Commission being in existence is important in this case, because it is the justification put forward by the applicant for having appeared before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation more than twelve months after the date of the accident.

(3.) THE next question is whether the accident arose "out of" the employment within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. It cannot be disputed that for an accident to arise out of any particular employment the risk of such an accident must to a greater or lesser degree have been inherent in the employment before the accident occurred; and it is evident that the risk of a ship exploding and knocking down a godown wall and through the ruins discharging a heavy piece of iron on to an employee's leg is not a risk which is ordinarily inherent, even remotely, in the applicant's employment in the godown. THE learned Commissioner bases his decision that the accident arose out of the employment largely upon two English decisions, Thom or Simpson v. Sinclair [1917] A. C. 127, s. c. 10 B. W. C. C. 220 and a later case which fully discussed Thorn or Simpson v. Sinclair, namely Brooker v. Thomas Borthwick and Sons (Australasia), Ld. [1933] A. C. 669, s. c. 26 B. W. C. C. 495 In the first of them a woman was injured by the fall of a wall which had no connection whatever with her employment. But the immediate cause of the injury was the collapse of the shed in which she was working; and the collapse of the shed was due to the fall of the wall. It was held by the House of Lords that it was immaterial to look beyond the immediate cause of the injury and to consider why the shed collapsed or to consider whose wall it was that brought the shed down, and they held that upon the terms of her employment the woman had to work in this particular shed and was in consequence injured by an accident which happened to the roof of the shed. In the second case a workman was injured by the collapse of a building due to an earthquake. THE principle of Thom or Simpson v. Sinclair was followed in the case and the injuries were held to arise out of the employment.