9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the seaman's death was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. 2. Whether the employer is liable to pay compensation under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the seaman's death was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment: The case revolves around the disappearance of a seaman employed as a deck-hand on the ship ss. "Dwarka". The seaman complained of chest pain and insomnia, for which he was treated by the ship's Medical Officer. On December 16, 1961, he was last seen at 3 a.m. on the Tween Deck, and by 6.15 a.m., he was found missing. Despite a search and notifications to other ships and local authorities, his body was never found. The Additional Commissioner inspected the ship and found no evidence to suggest that the seaman's disappearance was due to an accident arising out of his employment. He noted the absence of any stormy weather and the presence of a 3 1/2 feet bulwark, making it unlikely for the seaman to have accidentally fallen overboard. The Commissioner concluded that the evidence was insufficient to connect the seaman's disappearance with an accident related to his employment, stating, "There are too many missing links. Evidence does not show that it was a stormy night...I am unable to draw any presumption or conclusion that the man is dead or that his death was due to an accident arising out of his employment." 2. Whether the employer is liable to pay compensation under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act: Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act stipulates that compensation is payable if a personal injury is caused to a workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Act requires a causal relationship between the accident and the employment. The High Court, however, reversed the Additional Commissioner's decision, asserting that the death must be presumed to have occurred due to an accident arising out of employment. The High Court relied on the principle that if an accident occurs in the course of employment and is capable of being attributed to a risk inherent in the employment, it can be inferred that the accident arose out of the employment. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the High Court's inference. It emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the applicant to establish that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The Court cited various precedents, including *Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co. v. Highley* and *Simpson v. L.M. & S. Railway Co.*, to demonstrate that mere conjecture or surmise is insufficient to establish such a causal relationship. The Court noted, "The Commissioner must not surmise, conjecture or guess; on the other hand, he may draw an inference from the proved facts so long as it is a legitimate inference." The Supreme Court concluded that the Additional Commissioner did not err in his judgment and that the High Court was not justified in reversing it. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated March 5, 1965, was set aside. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that there was no sufficient evidence to conclude that the seaman's death was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Consequently, the employer was not liable to pay compensation under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Bombay High Court was reversed.
|
