G I P RAILWAY Vs. KASHINATH CHIMNAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We understand that this is the first case to be brought before the High Court under the new Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. I only hope that it is not going to be the forerunner of a large number of other cases, for, as we know, the English Workmen's Compensation Act has given rise to more litigation and more differences of opinion between various Judges than any legislation of modern times; and with our present overcrowded Hat we are not in a position to stand any substantial increase of litigation.

(2.) The present case is an appeal by the G.I.P. Railway Company under Section 30 of the Act, against an award of a sum of Rs. 750 by the Commissioner as lump compensation to the father and other relatives of the deceased. The question before us is whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the workman's employment within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. As has been clearly laid down in the English cases dealing with the same words, both those conditions must be.satisfied, viz., the accident must be one arising out of the employment. It must also be in the course of the employment. And unless both those conditions are satisfied, the workman can not bring his case within the Act. Now in the present case the company, admits before Us that the accident arose in the course of the workman's employment. But it is denied by them that it arose out of his employment. It is further contended by the company that the workman acted in wilful disobedience of a rule expressly framed for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen within proviso (b) (ii) to Section 3. It was also originally contended that he had up right to travel in the particular manner he did, and also that notice was not given as soon as practicable after the happening of the event as required by the Act.

(3.) The short facts are these. The workman was in the employ of the company on Rs. 25 a month, and was employed at Kalyan. He was sent on a message by one of the company's officers from Kalyan to Bombay. In Bombay he was directed by another of the company's officers to return to Kalyan. On his way back he was travelling in an electric train as far as Kurla. While so travelling he, to follow the language of the plaint, being "a coolie under the engineering department, on January 16, 1926, received personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment at the Sandhurst Road new bridge. The cause of injury is that while he was standing at about 12-52 P.M. on the day mentioned at the entrance of the carriage of a train on the Harbour branch supporting himself on the vertical iron bar, the train while going up the bridge received a jerk, and as a result of that Ganpat fell down on the lines and died consequently." In their written .statement the company do not deny the facts as stated in the claim, except that they do deny that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment.