1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 11. FA/2290/2009 With CA/9131/2009 In FA/2290/2009 With CA/12405/2009 In FA/2290/2009 (Vitthal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and another vs. Sunil Pandharinath Bedre and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. Vinay B.Anjanwatikar, Adv., h/f Mr. V.D.Hon, Adv., for the appellant. Mr.D.R.Jaybhar, Adv., for respondent no.1. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 served. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:18-2-2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Counsel extensively. 2. In an unfortunate accident, the deceased, aged 22 years, succumbed by drowning. 3. The claimants asserted that it was during the course of employment with the sugar factory, 2 she met with the accident. 4. During the course of submission, Mr.Jaybhar, Counsel representing the claimants, has placed reliance to the following judgments of various High Courts: (1) 2007(1) T.A.C. 568(Bom.) (Shipping Corporation of India Vs. Himatlal Sewai Solanki) (2) I (2004) ACC 804 (Geeta Devi and others VS Shiv Shankar and anr) (3) 2008(3) T.A.C. 297(Mad.) (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Nagaraj and others) (3) 2005 (III) CLR 446 (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Thankappan) (4) I (2204) ACC 136(DB) (Divisional Controller, NEKRTC Vs (Marembee & others) 3 (5) 2009(1) T.A.C. 977 (Ker.) (National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Lolakshi ) (6) 2009 (2) T.A.C. 656 (Guj.) (Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation vs. Bhanuben Maganbhai Havalia) There cannot be a quarrel on the proposition of law as indicated in these judgments. However, the law now settled by the Apex Court, indicated in the matter of 2009 AIR SCW 1688 (Mallikarjuna G.Hiremath Vs. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. and Another) cannot be shelved. The Apex Court, while dealing with identical eventuality, has indicated, "If the workman dies a natural death because of the disease which he was suffering or while suffering from a particular disease, he dies of that disease as a result of wear and tear of the employment, no liability would be fixed upon the employer. But if the 4 employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the death, or if the death was due not only to the disease but also the disease coupled with the employment, then it can be said that the death arose out of the employment and the employer would be liable." 5. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the deceased Manisha, after the employment, in the process of so called attending to drinking water, went to well and drowned. It hardly will amount to the continuation of employment. Consequently, the above judgments referred by Mr.Jaybhar, Counsel are seldom applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned Judge, apparently, erred in passing the order. 6. Record demonstrates that she had controversies with her husband and others and it was giving an impression of suicidal attempts. Keeping aside the controversy about the cause of death - whether it was drowning or suicide, the fact remains the death is 5 occasioned when the deceased Manisha was not performing her duties as a labour with the Karkhana. Consequently, the order of the learned Commissioner granting compensation, is beyond the scope of the very pursuits. The amount or the liability could not have been fixed to the appellant karkhana. The order suffers. It is, accordingly, set aside. Appeal allowed to the above extent. Civil Applications disposed of. The amount deposited by the Karkhana be disbursed to it after three months. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/2290-09fa