SAIL ROURKELA STEEL PLANT Vs. RAJESH KISAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The employer has filed tiiis appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (in short, the "Act") against the award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner (in short, the "Commissioner"), Rourkela awarding a sum of Rs. 55,652.

(2.) The claimant-respondent is the son of deceased Chaitan Kisan, who was admittedly working under the present appellant. It is alleged in the claim petition mat the deceased while going to attend his "B" shift duty on 27.5.1988, his bicycle collided with running buffalo near the Traffic Gate of the appellant's factory as a result of which the deceased fell down and sustained injury and after being admitted to Ispat General Hospital, died on 28.5.1988. Alleging that the deceased had died in an accident arising out of and in course of employment, a claim application was filed. The appellant while denying about the allegations made in the claim application contended that the deceased was found lying near the main gate of the plant and was taken to the medical unit inside the plant. On examination, the doctor found mat the deceased was in a drunken state and was a chronic alcoholic. After giving some first aid, the deceased was referred to the Ispat General Hospital, where the deceased was treated of Hansans infection, chronic alcoholic, massive upper G.I. bleeding and hepatic problem. It was submitted that the death of the deceased on 28.5.1988 was not due to any accident arising out of and in course of employment. It was also pleaded that the death having occurred on 28.5.1988, the application for compensation filed on 21.9.1993, after a lapse of more than five years was barred by limitation.

(3.) The Commissioner found that the deceased had fallen from bicycle and such fall was occasioned for the strain caused due to excessive heat due to hot summer. It was held that the accident arose out of and in course of employment and as such, the claimant was entitled to get compensation. In mis appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it cannot be said that the accident arose out of and in course of employment of the deceased. He has referred to the evidence of the two doctors who were examined as D.Ws 1 and 2 and contended that the death of the deceased was due to chronic alcoholism and other ailments such as Hansans disease which resulted in liver failure. It is further claimed that though it was alleged that the deceased fell from the cycle being dashed with a buffalo, the Commissioner found that the deceased fell down from bicycle due to excessive heat which was contrary to the pleading as well as the evidence on record.