JAYA BISWAL & ORS. versus BRANCH MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 299 · Decided: 04-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2016] 1 S.C.R. 299 
JAYA BISWAL & ORS. 
v. 
BRANCH MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE 
COMPANY LTD. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 869of2016) 
FEBRUARY 04, 2016 
' [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Employees 'Compensation Act, 1923- s.3-Employer :~liability 
for compensation - Death of truck driver aged 26 years during the 
course of employment with employer.,, Claim petition by the parems 
- Case of employer that he was not liable to compensate since the 
truck driver died on the spot due to his own negligence - Award of 
Rs. 10, 75,2531- as compensation by Commissioner - However, Single 
Judge of High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.6,00,0001- as 
also waived the award of 50% penalty with interest @l 2% pa - On 
appeal, held: It is clear that the truck driver died in an accident 
which arose in and during the course of employme111 - Though no 
negligence on part of the deceased made out as he was merely trying 
his best to stop the truck from moving unmanned, even if there were 
negligence on his part, it would not disentitle his dependents from 
claiming compensation under the Act '- Commissioner had passed a 
well reasoned and elaborate order of award of compensation -
Interference by the High Court by reducing the compensation 
amount by more than half by merely mentioning that ii is in the 
'imerest of justice' was uncalled for when the. poor parents have 
lost their elder son and became destitute - Rs.10,92,8501- awarded 
as compensation along with interest @l 2% pa from the date of 
accident. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is a 
social welfare legislation enacted to secure compensation to the 
poor workmen who suffer from injuries at their place of work. 
The Act is meant to benefit the workers and their dependents in 
case of death of workman dne to accident caused during and in 
the course of employment should be construed as such. The 
299 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
300 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPRE!'v!E COURT REPORTS 
[2016] I S.C.R. 
liability of the employer arises when the workman sustains 
injuries in an accident which arises out of and in the course of his 
employment. [Para 18, 19](310-E-F; 311-C-D, F] 
1.2 The submission that the appellants are not entitled to 
any compensation because the deceased died as a result of his 
own negligence, cannot he accepted. Section 3 of the Employees' 
Compensation Act does not create any exception of the kind, 
which permits the employer to avoid his liability if there was 
negligence on part of the workman. The Act does not envisage a 
situation where the compensation payable to an injured or 
deceased workman can be reduced on account of contributory 
negligence. Mere negligence does not disentitle a workman to 
compensation. [Para 2111312-E-H] 
1.3 On facts, no negligence on part of the deceased has 
been made out as he was merely trying his best to stop the truck 
from moving unmanned, even if there were negligence on his 
part, it would not disentitle his dependents from claiming 
compensation under the Act. Thus, it is clear that the deceased 
died in an accident which arose in and during the course of 
employment. [Paras21 and 22] [313-E-FI 
1.4 Since neither of the parties produced any document on 
record to prove the exact amount of wages being earned by the 
deceased at the time of the accident, to arrive at the amount of 
wages, the Commissioner took into consideration the fact that 
the deceased was a highly skilled workman and would often be 
required to undertake long journeys outside the state in the line 
of duty, especially considering the fact that the vehicle in question 
had a registered National Route Permit. The wages of the 
deceased were accepted as Rs.4,000/- per month + daily bhatta 
of Rs.6,000/- per month, which amounts to a total of Rs.10,000/-
. The High Court did not give any reason on which basis it 
interfered with the finding recorded by the Commissioner on the 
aspect of monthly wages earned by the deceased. The impugned 
judgment does not even mention what according to the High 
Court, the wages of the deceased were at the time of the accident. 
In the light of the well reasoned and elaborate order of award of 
compensation by the Commissioner, the High Court could not 
have reduced the compensation amount by more than half b)· 
JAYA BlSWAL v. BRANCH MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GEN. 
INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. 
merely mentioning that it is in the 'interest of justice'. It
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.