(x) LIABILITY OF AN EMPLOYER TO PAY COMPENSATION

• For payment of compensation under the Act, there should be casual connection between the employment and cause of death.
Leela Deai v. Ram Lll Rahu, 1989 LlC 758: (1988) 73 FjR 238: 1990 LLR 212 (HP HC).

• Even when an employee goes for lunch and receives injury, the same will be treated as 'employment injury' entitling him to compensation
Regional Director, ESI Corporation Bombay v. Marry Cutinho, 1994 LLR 947: 1994 (69) FLR 633 (Born He).

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, sections 146 & 147 - Deceased employed for loading and unloading stone from the Tractor - Died of heart attack while at work ¬Contention that unless there is some nexus between and the use of vehicles, the Insurer is not liable - Not sustainable.
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balawwa, (1994) 1 LLj 433: 1993 LLR 835 (KaT HC). • Death of an employee on the way different than the normal route, while returning after duty hours will not amount to an industrial accident and no compensation will be payable.
Steel Authority of India Ltd., Rourkela v. Ranchanbala Mohanty, 1994 LLR 911: 1994 (69) FLR 1020: 1994-1I LLj 1167: 1994-1I LLN 1133: 1994 LlC 1528 (Ori He).

• There must be direct connection between accident and death for claiming compensation.
Tuticorin Stevedores Association, Tutieorin v. Deputy Commissioner for Llbour (Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation), Tirunelveli, 1995 LLR 1024 (Mad HC).

• An employee will be liable for payment of compensation even when a' casual employee employed abroad meets with an accident.
Assistant Executive Engineer v. Sunanda, 1995 LLR 116 (KaT HC).

• The dependents of a workman murdered during communal riots on his way to work place will be entitled to compensation.
T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. v. S. Poomalai, 1995 LLR 63: 1995 (70) FLR 459: 1994-1I LLN 950: 1995-1 LLj 378 (Mad He).

• There will be no nexus between the cause of death and employment injury when an employee dies after treatment of the injury in the hospital.
Damyantiben Kantilal Pandya v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 1996 LLR 788 (Guj HC).

• Even a casual employee will be entitled to compensation if he meets with an accident during the course of his employment.
1. Mammed v. Gopalan, 1996 LLR 426 (Ker HC).
2. Shah v. Rajankutty, 2005 LLR 1122 (Ker HC).

• An employer will be liable to pay compensation when a workman dies in a road accident on leaving the work place for taking lunch, the road being maintained by the employer.
Steel Authority of India Ltd., Rourkela Steel Plant cv. fema, (2000) LIC 103: (2000) 1 CLR 520: (2000) 85 FLR 71: (2000) 1 LLN 672: 2000 LLR 356 (Ori HC).

• The owner of the truck will be liable to pay compensation if a cleaner engaged by the driver is injured in an accident.
Mohammad Anis Mohd. Ely,a Khan v. Litiza and Company, (2000) 85 FLR 79: (2000) 1 LLJ 1304: 2000 LLR 399 (Born HC).

• Compensation on accident cannot be denied to the claimants on the plea that the deceased employee was less than 16 years.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rathanamma, 2000 LLR 854 (Kam HC).

• Compensation for accident will be payable by an employer even when the employment was of casual nature.
Kunjoonjamma Daniel v. KS.E.B., (2001) II LLf 778: 2001 LLR 691 (Ker HC).

• Compensation will be payable when an employee sustained stab injuries on rus way to do the work.
Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Chel/appan, 2000 LLR 1301 (Ori HC).

• Compensation for accident will be payable to an injured employee travelling in the employer's vehicle.
Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Purushothaman, 2001 LLR 1057 (Ker He).

• Compensation will be payable for injuries caused by acid jar being carried by a head load worker.
Kuttappan v. C.K Keshavan, (2001) II LLJ 1316: 2002 LLR 34 (Ker HC).

• Compensation will be paid on accidental death of a tractor driver even if he had no driving licence.
Usha Bai v. Yogendra Singh, (2002) 3 MPLJ 54: (2002) 3 LLN 1000: 2002 LLR 568 (MP HC). • Acquittal of employer will not be a ground for denial of compensation for injuries suffered by a workman.
Mohammad Rafiq Mohiuddin v. S. Narasimha, (2002) IV LLf (Supp) NOC 1306: 2002 LLR 718 (AP HC).

• An employer will be liable to pay compensation to a truck driver as murdered on the way alongwith the goods as loaded in the truck.
Oriental Insurance Campany Ltd, v. Rachna Devi, 2005 LLR 902 (P&H HC).

• An employee can claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act when rus claim for disablement has been declined because he has ceased to be an employee under the ESI Act.
Employees' State Insurance Corporation (represented by Regional Director), Chenna; v. M. Ganesan, 2003 LLR 781: 2003-11 LLN 646 (Mad HC),

• When a Branch Manager is incapacitated due to assault by a guarantor, the employer will be liable to pay compensation.
Kathari Group of Financiers v. Sri K Muralidhar, (2004) 101 FLR 1102: 2004 LIC 1802: 2004 LLR 617 (AP HC).

• An employer will have to pay the compensation even if the workman was not discharging his duty at the time of accident.
Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam v. Mohnoob Subhani, 2005 LLR 26 (AP HC).

• Liability of an employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act is like an insurer and different than that under the law of tort.
Hindu Inter Co1Jege, Kandh/a, Muzafjarnagar v. Prescribed Authority (Minimum Wages Act, 1948), 2005 LLR 352 (All HC).

• The strain of the work resulting into heart attack will fasten the liability on employer for paying compensation.
Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, Gulbarga v. Sangamma, 2005 LLR 352 (Kam He).

• Mere negligence or gross negligence of a workman does not result into disentitlement for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Shah v. Rajankutty, 2005 LLR 1122 (Ker HC).

• In the absence of evidence that the deceased died in an employment accident, no compensation will be payable.
Rohini Shamrao Burud v. Hindusfan Petroleum Corporation, 2006 LLR 288 (Born He).

• An employer will not be liable to pay compensation when workman has committed suicide.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Meenaxi Dhareppa Kali, 2006 LLR 679 (Kam HC).

• An employer will not be liable to pay compensation if an employee dies of heart attack even on work place when he was suffering from chest disease.
Iyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore, (2006) 5 SCC 513, AIR 2006 SC 2830, (2006) 3 KLT 426: (2006) 3 LLN 8110 2006 LLR 890 (SC).

• An employer will not be liable for compensation to dependents of deceased who have failed to prove that he was a workman.
RL. Bhalla v. Poonam Devi, 2006 LLR 919 (Del HC).

• A lessee of mill cannot escape liability for compensation to dependents of workman dieing in an accident.
Thati Ranga Rao v. L. Varalaxmi, 2007 LLR 19 (AP HC).

• No compensation to the legal heirs of driver who, after leaving the truck went home, got pain in the heart and died.
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Srinivasa, 2007 LLR 427 (Karn He). • In the absence of nexus between the employment and the death due to heart attack, no compensation will be payable.
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., HUnsUT v. Srinivasa2007 LLR 481 (KamHC).

• No compensation payable when fatal accident occurred more than one kilometre away from work place.
Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Bibi Jail Bibi, 2007 LLR 864 (]har HC).

• Even the motor vehicle driver will be entitled to compensation on accident.
Oriental Insurance Co, Ltd. v. Joseph, 2007 LLR 988 (Ker He).

• A workman will not be deprived of accident compensation merely that he continues in the employment and even promoted.
General Manager, Mis. Tungabadra Minerals Ltd. v. Sri G. Ameer, 2007 LLR 1051 (Kam HC).

• For compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, appointment letter is not necessary.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad v. K. Anjaneyulu, 2007 LLR 1075 (AP HC).

• A learner sustaining injuries while operating the machine cannot be deprived of compensation.
Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. v. Namdeo Mukund Deoghare, 2007 LLR 1093 (Born HC).

• An act of God provides no excuse for payment of accident compensation unless it is so unexpected that no reasonable human foresight could be presumed, Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial) v. Fagua Sai, 2008 LLR 276 (Chht HC).

• Compensation to the dependents of the deceased scavengers, dying inside the sewer line due to toxic gases, is justified.
Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Pvt, Ltd. v. Sunita, 2008 LLR 532 (Del HC).

• Employer's plea that deceased were drunk when died in sewer line was untenable to deny compensation for accident arising out of and during course of employment.
Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v, Sunita, 2008 LLR 532 (Del HC),

• No compensation is to be granted when deceased was not entitled to drive the tractor.
New India Assurance Co, Ltd., Bangalore v. K.S. Puttappa, 2008 LLR 327 (Kam HC).

• Owner cannot escape the liability for compensation for accidental death of driver on the plea that car was gratiously given to an unknown person.
Narayan Sahadu PatU v. Kalashri Vijay Dhamke, 2008 LLR 322 (Born HC).

• Rejection of claim by widow of driver, dying in blast while driving tanker, not proper.
Smt. Usha Patel v. Dilip Transport Co" 2007 LLR 1266 (MP HC).

• When deceased workman died more than one km. away from the work-place, no compensa tion will be payable.
G. T.P. Granite Ltd" Unit-II, Salem District v. Sathya. 2008 LLR 451 (Mad He).

• Merely that the post-mortem report revealed the deceased has consumed alcohol, compensation for accident cannot be denied.
H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd, v. Narmada Devi., 2008 LLR 1032 (HP HC).

• Murder by a subordinate, since the deceased did not sanction his leave, will be an accident for compensation.
State of Maharashtra v. Arti Ashok Kapshikar, 2008 LLR 1052 (Born HC).

• An employer can't escape liability from compensation on death of a loader stating that the payment was to be made by consignor.
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Hubli v. Shivabasavva, 2009 LLR 40 (Kam HC),


(xi) MISCELLANEOUS

• An Insurance Company in an endorsement policy will not be liable for payment of compensation under the Act if an employee dies in an accident while, travelling in a vehicle where such a risk was not covered by the Insurance Policy.
Managing Director, Durg Transport Company Pvt. Ltd" Durg v, Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation-cum-Labour Court, Durg, (1995) III LLj (Supp) 238: 1990 LLR 519 (MP HC).

• Wilful disobedience - Cannot exonerate the company employee from the liability as specified in the substantive part of section 3(1) of the Act.
Ramrao Zingraji Shande v. Mis. Indian Yarn Manufacturing Company, 1993 LIC 1658: (1993) 1 LLN 487: (1992) 2 CLR 599: 1992 LLR 934: 1992 (65) FLR 1055 (Born HC),