MANJU SARKAR & ORS. versus MABISH MIAH AND ORS.

Citation: [2014] 6 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 30-06-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 126 
MANJU SARKAR & ORS. 
v. 
MABISH MIAH AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5847 of 2014) 
JUNE 30, 2014 
[T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: 
C 
s.3(1) - Accident arising out of and in the course of 
employment - Claim for compensation -
Victim-deceased 
employed by respondent 1 and 2 to drive truck on the relevant 
day from Agartala to godown - After entering the godown, he 
left the truck on the pretext that there was a mechanical fault 
D in the truck and informed the helper that he would come at 
night - Thereafter he met with road accident and died - Suit 
by wife and children claiming compensation - Commissioner 
dismissed the suit accepting the contention of respondents 
that on reaching the godown the deceased ceased to be in 
E their employment - Held: Such contention of the respondents 
was an after thought -
It was mentioned in the First 
Information Report lodged by the helper that the truck reached 
godown and the deceased was to return back to Agartala with 
the truck laden with rice bags -
The employment does not 
F necessarily end when the "down tool" signal is given or when 
the workman leaves the actual workshop where he is working 
- There is a notional extension at both the entry and exit by 
time and space -
The scope of such extension must 
necessarily depend on the circumstances of a given case -
G There was a notional extension in the instant case also -
Thus, deceased met with the road accident in the course of 
his employment - Courts below misdirected themselves while 
H 
126 
MANJU SARKAR v. MABISH MIAH 
127 
· dealing with this question and the finding rendered by them 
A 
was perverse and unsustainable. 
s.4 - Quantum of compensation - Victim-deceased at the 
time of death was aged about 22 years and getting monthly 
wages of Rs. 4, 5001- - As per s. 4 clause 1 (a) of the Act where 
B 
1 death results from the injury, 50% of the monthly wages of the 
deceased multiplied by the relevant factor would be the 
amount of compensation -
In the instant case, the 
compensation would be a sum of Rs. 2250 being 50% of the 
monthly wages multiplied by factor 221.37, which comes to c 
Rs. 4, 98, 082. 50 - A further sum of Rs. 10, 0001- awarded 
towards funeral expenses as per s.4 Clause (4) - Interest @ 
9% p.a. on the compensation from the date of claim petition 
also awarded. 
The deceased was the husband and father of 
appellants-claimants. The case of appellant was that on 
14.05.05, the deceased was employed to drive truck 
owned by Respondent no.1 and 2 from Agartala to their 
godown. On reaching the godown, he noticed some 
mechanical trouble in the truck and he got down to make 
arrangement for repair of the truck and informed the.;. 
helper that he would be back by night for return trip. On 
intervening right of 14115.05.2005, he met with a road 
accident and sustained grievous injuries and was taken 
to hospital where he died. The helper of the truck who 
was waiting in the truck went in search of the deceased 
in the morning and came to know about the accidental 
death of the deceased and thereafter he lodged an FIR. 
The appellants filed suit under the Workmen's 
Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner dismissed 
the suit. The High Court dismissed the appeal. The instant 
appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1. The pleadings showed that the deceased 
was employed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 to drive their 
truck at the relevant time. Though respondent Nos. 1 and 
2 had stated in the counter that the deceased was 
entrusted to drive the truck on 13.5.2005 and on the same 
B day the said truck entered the godown complex of FCI at 
Churaibari, this statement about the date did not appear 
to be correct. It was categorically stated in the claim 
petition that the deceased drove the truck vehicle on 
14.5.2005 and the said fact was corroborated by the 
C averments in the First Information Report as well as final 
report which specifically stated that the truck reached the 
FCI godown at Churaibari on 14.5.2005. Further case of 
respondent Nos.1 and 2 was that the deceased was 
employed by them to drive the truck vehicle from Agartala 
D to Dharmanagar FCI godown at Churaibari and on the 
truck reaching the godown, the deceased ceased to be in 
their employment. This was also an after thought and 
factually incorrect. As pe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.