DUKHINI RAJAHARIN Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of one Dukhini Rajaharin, widow of Tilokdhari Rajwar, a person who was employed under the Corporation of Calcutta as what has been called a Conservancy or lorry cooly. He died on the 3rd day of October, 1953, as a result of an accident which was not denied. The widow's case was that on the day In, question and at the time when the accident had occurred, the lorry on which her husband had been serving was being backed near the Bellaghata Bridge and her husband was, as it was quaintly put", "showing hands to the pedestrians." While he was doing so, the lorry, it was said dashed him against a wall and injured him so severely that he died in the Campbell Hospital on the self-same day. On the above recital of facts, the widow contended that her husband had died of personal injury caused to him by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under the Corporation of Calcutta and that consequently she was entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,500 as compensation on the basis of the monthly wages of her deceased husband which were Rs. 50 per month.

(2.) "As I have already stated the Corporation of Calcutta did noC deny that Tilakdhari Raj-war had died in course of an accident, nor that he had been employed under the Corporation. It appears to have been contended that while an accident did happen, it did not happen exactly at the site alleged, but the exact location of the place of accident appears to be immaterial. The wages of the deceased employee were also admitted to have been Rs. 50 per month, as alleged by his widow. The only substantial defence raised was that in view of the nature of his duties, Tilakdhari Rajwar was not a workman within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

(3.) The respondent's case was that her husband was a workman within the definition of that term, as given in Clause (i) of Schedule II to the Workmen's Compensation Act, read with Section 2 (1) (n). More specifically stated, the respondent's case was that her husband had been employed otherwise than in a clerical capacity in connection with the operation of a vehicle, propelled by mechanical power. I may say at once that, in the application itself the appellant alleged that her husband had been a lorry cooly as also a cleaner. No evidence that he had been a cleaner was given, but the contention that he came under Clause (i) of Schedule n to the Act was based upon the statement of his duties as made by her sole witness, Suraj Rajbhwar, in the course of his cross-examination.