HALEMABI Vs. ARDESHIR BCURSETJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the widow of one Mahmed Ahmed Shaikh Mahiboo claimed compensation for the death of her husband who died as a result of an injury which he sustained while in the employment of the respondents.

(2.) Various contentions were raised in the lower Court : (1) whether the applicant was a dependent; (2) whether the deceased workman received an injury as the result of an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment, and whether the injury caused his death; and (3) whether notice was given as provided in Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and whether if such notice was not given, the failure to give notice was due to sufficient cause. On the first two points the Commissioner decided in favour of the applicant. On the last point he held that there was no sufficient cause to prevent the deceased from going to the Doctor and also informing his foreman, who was constantly on the ship, and therefore the failure to give notice was not due to sufficient cause.

(3.) It appears that the deceased received an injury on October 19, while he was doing work on the hatch of the boat S.S. Khandalla and received an injury with the result that the nail was off the middle finger. He worked on for half a day and also at night on the 19th, and worked on the 20 at night, on the 21 he did not work, on the 22nd he worked during the day, on the 24 he worked day and night, on the 25 he worked during the day and on the 26 he worked at night, on the 27 he did not work, and on the 28 morning he got lock-jaw and was removed to the hospital and died of tetanus at 9 a. m. On October 30, the applicant, the widow of the deceased, gave notice to the opponents claiming compensation for the injury received by the workman during the course of his employment, and on November 21, 193X, she filed an application before the Commissioner,