ALIMOHAMED JUMARDIKHAN Vs. SHANKAR TUKARAM POTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against a decision of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. He has awarded Rs. 810 on account of an accident caused to a daily labourer who was travelling in her employer's motor lorry for loading and unloading the lorry with bricks. The accident occurred on June 25, 1943, and death took place three days later ; but notice of the accident was not given by the representatives of the injured woman until July 22, and failure to give adequate notice is one of the grounds of this appeal by the employer.

(2.) This Court is not entitled to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation except on a substantial question of law, and that would of course include a finding of fact which was not based upon evidence; and it has been argued in this appeal that the Commissioner was wrong in his finding that the injured woman was employed by the employer. There is however evidence in that respect, though it is not particularly good evidence. The evidence of the driver of the lorry is that she was engaged on the road by the employer's mukadam, who himself was in the lorry at the time; and though there is the evidence of another occupant of the lorry to the effect that the, employment was by the driver, and though the muster roll (as is not unnatural) does not contain any mention of this woman having been employed that day, there is undoubtedly evidence on which it was possible for the Commissioner to come to his finding, and it is therefore not open to us to interfere. We take it that she was in fact in the employ of her employer at the time of the accident.

(3.) The next point argued is that the claim cannot be sustained in view of the want of adequate notice. Section 10 of the Act prescribes that notice of the accident should be given as soon as practicable after the occurrence of the accident. But it also provides that failure to give proper notice will not bar a claim if the employer had knowledge of the accident from some other source at or about the time when it occurred. It is stated in the course of the judgment before us that the employer admitted the receipt of a telephone message from somebody unknown on the day of the accident. We have been unable to find any such admission in the evidence in the case or in any written purshis to that effect; but the notes of arguments are before us, and it is evident that the employer's learned Counsel admitted in the course of the arguments that his client had received a telephone message. That would undoubtedly put the employer on enquiry, and in our view that is all that is necessary to enable the employee to escape the consequences of failing to give notice. But I do not propose to go deeply into this matter. It is clear from the judgment that in the early stages of the case the question of want of notice was not pressed. In fact no issue was raised on the point, and that is why there is no evidence on the point. The matter was pressed only at the close of the evidence. We think that the learned Commissioner was justified in acting on the admission of counsel and finding that the employer had in fact notice from other sources.