Case Details

Citation(s)
1970 SLG 3210 1970 SLD 3210 = 1970 PLD 653
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 109 of 1968, decided on 9th March 1970.
Presented By: Muhammad Haleem, J
Nizam Ahmad for Appellant. S. A. Channa for
Respondent.

MESSRS BRIGSTOCK EDULJEE & Co., KARACHI-Appellant

VERSUS

Mst. AJBAI-Respondent

Law: Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)

Section: 3, 30

Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1913), Ss. 3 & 30 Suit for compensation-Injury arising "out of employment " Deceased at time of death employed to remove Bauxite Ore lying in hold of a ship-Deceased dying of suffocation due to inhalation of Bauxite Powder-Death, held, consequence of inhaling Bauxite Powder although no post-mortem held save inquest under S. 174, Cr. P. C.-Expression "accident" used in ordinary sense of the word as denoting an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event not expected or designed -Absence of medical evidence held not to be a decisive factor in matter of compensation -Compensation allowed. When we talk of an accident within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act we are not speaking of something that is fortuitous or that has arisen from exterior and external causes. There may be an accident to a workman which happens to him from internal causes without there being any mischance or mishap to the machinery or work on which he is engaged. The expression `accident' is used in the popular and ordinary sense of the word as denoting an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed. If a workman in the reasonable performance of his duties sustains a physiological injury as the result of the work he is engaged in this is accidental injury in the sense of the statute. Where a workman engaged to remove bauxite ore (in form of soft stone and powder) from the hold of a ship, complained of suffocation and coming out of the ship hold vomitted and died, it was held that despite fact that no post mortem was held death appeared to be the consequence of inhaling bauxite powder although there was no medical evidence on record to establish the fact. McForlane v. Hutton Bros. (Stevedores) Ltd. (1926) 20 B W C C 222 ; Moore v. Tredogar Iron & Coal Co. Ltd. (1968) 31 B W C C 359 (B) and Ormond v. C. D. Holmes & Co. Ltd. (1937) 2 All E R 795 distinguished. Laxmibai Atmaram v. Chairman and Trustees, Bombay Port Trust A I R 1954 Bom. 180 ref. Dates of hearing : 10th December 1969 and 9th March 1,970.   JUDGMENT This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register