IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. **** FAO NO. 1701 OF 2007. DATE OF DECISION:...... August, 2007. *** Managing Director, UHBVNL and others. Versus Satya Devi. **** Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S.Madan. **** Present: Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the appellants. *** R.S.Madan, J The controversy involved in the instant appeal is whether a workman after performing his duty, when returning from his work place to his residence, when met with an accident and died at the spot can be considered as a person having suffered death during the course of employment. The matter was brought before the Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar, under the Workmen's Compensation Act by the widow of Jagdish Chand (deceased employee), who after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, accepted the petition vide order dated January 03, 2007 and awarded an amount of Rs. 2,71,120/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 21.1.2003 till the realization of the same, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable to make the payment. Feeling dis-satisfied with the impugned order, the Managing Director of Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula and two others, have preferred this appeal before this Court. -2- FAO NO. 1701 OF 2007. Before dealing with the question, the brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this appeal, are to be taken care of. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband Jagdish Chand who was working as Lineman under the control of Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation Sub Division No.1 UHBVN Limited Radaur Road, Near Patel Nagar, Yamuna Nagar-respondent No.2, while he was returning from his duty on January 21, 2003 at about 5.30 P.M. met with a road side accident which resulted into his death at the spot. The legal representatives of the deceased alleged that the accident took place during the course of employment with the respondents. First Information Report in this regard under Sections 337/304-A/427 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the horse puller at Police Station, Farakpur. It is alleged that on the date of accident, the deceased was about 55 years of age and was drawing salary of Rs.6250/- per month (Basic Pay). It is further the case of the petitioner that the accident was in the knowledge of the respondents. The petitioner has prayed for the grant of compensation of Rs. Five Lac along with 50% penalty and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident with all other benefits to which the deceased was entitled to receive. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents by filing the written statement inter alia pleading that the deceased did not suffer death during the course of employment. They thus prayed that the petition be dismissed. The learned Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar, vide order dated January 03, 2007 accepted the petition and awarded an amount of Rs. 2,71,120/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till the realization of the same. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. -3- FAO NO. 1701 OF 2007. It is pertinent to mention here that when the case was at the stage of respondents evidence, on August 25, 2006, the appellants- respondents prefer to remain absent and the absence of the appellants- respondents was taken to be deliberate and mala fide and were proceeded against ex-parte. It was thereafter that the ex-parte award dated September 27, 2006 was passed in favour of the petitioner, the alleged legal representatives of the deceased. The present appellants were directed to deposit the amount of compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Aggrieved against the ex-parte award dated September 27, 2006, an application was moved by the appellants for setting aside the award with No Objection from the counsel for the respondents-claimants, for setting aside the award. Resultantly, the ex- parte award was set aside vide order dated December 07, 2006. Thereafter, the respondents examined Shri Rajinder Kumar, Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division No.1 and closed the evidence. After analyzing the evidence brought on the record, findings on all the issues were returned in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Resultantly,the claim petition was accepted. However, in the relief clause the Commissioner awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum, on the amount of Rs. 2,71,120/-, from the date of accident till the realization of the same. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the observation of the Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar that the deceased met with an accident while returning from duty, can not be termed that he had suffered death during the course of employment with the appellants. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is hardly of any significance, in view of the observation made in this behalf in Miliangos V. George Frank (Textiles) Limited, 1975 All. E.R. 1076. What is an employment injury is defined in Section 2(8) of the -4- FAO NO. 1701 OF 2007. Employees State Insurance Act, which is reproduced as under:- "2(8) "employment injury" means a personal injury to an employee caused by accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment, being an insurable employment, whether the accident occurs or the occupational disease is contracted within or outside the territorial limits of India." The popular concept is that an employment injury can be only a physical hurt sustained in the course of employment and can be only the result of an accident. This may not be the correct perception in these days of development of science and expanding of industrial activities. A person can sustain injury to various parts of his person even without involving in a physical accident but by mere exposure to the advanced manner of working at the work place and employing of developed equipment's and machinery's. There can be a situation whereby continued exposure to chemicals, radiation etc. at the workplace, chemical change can take place in the blood cell composition of a worker and he be victim of terminal illness. This is a form of injury. Working at high altitude may generate vertigo in a worker, this can also be an injury correlated to the work. Exposure to high decibel of noise impairs the capacity of hearing. This may also be an employment injury. Illustrations thus of injury suffered due to occupational hazards are infinite and to interpret the expression "employment injury" to means confining it only to bodily harm sustained by the worker in the course of employment is shutting out the advances made by science. Therefore, the meaning of the expression `injury' in these circumstances cannot be static and it has to take colour, depending on the advances made in the nature of work, its correlation with the worker, its impact on his health and such other relevant and material considerations. -5- FAO NO. 1701 OF 2007. Unless more futuristic meaning is ascribed to the expression `employment injury' in the present changing scenario due to the development in science and other allied factors, the very object of the constitution of Employees' State Insurance would be rendered futile. The philosophy behind the ESI scheme being converting an individual responsibility for employment injury into a matter of social responsibility the victim of the tort should be protected. The employer, in fact, is an industrial tort-feasor. As such it is not necessary to await a statutory legislation for enlarging the meaning of the expression `employment injury'. The object behind the legislation being protection to the weaker section with a view to do social justice, the provisions of the Act have to be interpreted liberally so that other things being equal, the leaning of the Court has to be towards the person for whose benefit the legislation is made. Bearing this principle in mind, the expression accident found in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act has to be understood as meaning a mishap or un-towards event not expected or designed. In other words, the basic and indispensable ingredient of the accident is the un-expectation. The concept of accident in the course of employment was considered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and it was observed that the fact that a workman met with his death as he was walking into the factory to join his shift and not while he was actually working does not mean that his death took place outside the course of his employment. The phrase “in the course of employment” in Section 2 (8) does not exclude a happening which takes place outside, both in time and place. It is also not necessary that accident should take place during actual handling of tools. Reference in this regard can be had from AIR 1959 Madhya Pradesh 338. It is proved keeping in view the observations of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (supra) that even if the employee met with an accident -6- FAO NO. 1701 OF 2007. outside the factory premises and was on the way for his duty or returning back after performing his duties, the injuries sustained by the employee falls within the meaning of employment injuries. Thus, in my view the learned Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar has correctly decided the issue by observing that the dependents' of the deceased employee were entitled to the dependent's benefit as provided under the Act. As far as the question of grant of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident is concerned, in my view it is on the higher side and requires to be modified. Accordingly, it is held that as per the norms of the Reserve Bank of India, the interest will be payable at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of passing of the award till the realization of the same. As a result, except for the modification in the rate of interest, as already indicated above, the appeal fails being devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. August , 2007. (R.S.Madan) Malik Judge