Case Brief: R.B. Moondra and Co. vs Mst. Bhanwari And Anr.

INTRODUCTION

This appeal, made to the honorable Rajasthan High Court, had been instituted in response to a judgment made by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner who was posted at Jodhpur. The judgment of the Commissioner had granted the pleading of Mst. Bhanwari, a widowed woman, was the widow of a dead workman named Gordhansingh, in the form of Rs. 7000 as compensation. The present legal battle’s appellant was R.B. Moondra and Co., the company in whose employ Gordhansingh lost his life to injuries in the form of severe burns in a fire that broke out in the petrol tank of a truck he was to drive for them. The origin of this unfortunate incident was that Gordhansingh had been trying to investigate a leak in the very petrol tank that would eventually become the location of the deadly blaze. In his attempt to find the source of the leak, Gordhansingh made the fatal choice to light up the inside of the tank by lighting a matchstick. This harmless-looking action caused an instant and devastating fire, leading to the serious injuries that resulted in his death.

The central issue of the legal controversy before the Rajasthan High Court concerned the application and construction of the basic principle contained in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, namely whether the facts of Gordhansingh’s death constituted an “accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.” The employer, R.B. Moondra and Co., launched a strong challenge to the Commissioner’s award, contending that the deceased workman’s action of bringing an open flame into a confined space where there were volatile petrol fumes was an inherently reckless and negligent act. They maintained that this action was so lacking in reasonable care and so plainly beyond the expected or acceptable ways of carrying out his duty that it broke the chain of causation between his duty of employment and the subsequent accident.

The employer’s case rested on the argument that Gordhansingh, by his own reckless behavior, had gone beyond the protective cover of his employment and thus relieved R.B. Moondra and Co. was freed from any legal liability to pay compensation for his death. This appeal, therefore, put the Rajasthan High Court in the delicate position of balancing the benevolent spirit of the Workmen’s Compensation Act with the well-established legal principles relating to the ambit and limit of an employee’s act during the course of employment. The court was invited to carefully scrutinize the chain of causation between the duty under assignment, the procedure adopted by the workman, and the consequential disastrous mishap to see if the employer could be made liable under the statutory scheme designed to protect the interests of workmen engaged in dangerous professions.

FACTS

Gordhansingh, who was a truck driver working for “R.B. Moondra and Co.”, had reported a petrol tank leakage. During the night, his employer had partly filled up the tank with water and asked Gordhansingh to check it the following morning. On November 10, 1963, while searching for the leakage from inside the tank, Gordhansingh lighted a matchstick, which resulted in the fire. Gordhansingh received critical burns and died. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner awarded his wife, Mst. Bhanwari, Rs. 7000 as compensation. The employer appealed. Evidence led suggested the employer may have provided the matchbox, something they had denied. The Commissioner was skeptical of this detail. The Commissioner held the deceased to be a workman, the accident took place during and arising out of his employment, his monthly wage was Rs. 150, the remarriage of the widow did not disentitle her to claim, and compensation was not payable by the insurance company.

ISSUE RAISED

The major issues raised were:

1. Did the blaze which killed the driver come “out of and in the course of” his employment, since he was obligated to inspect the leaking tank?
2. Was it an impulsive act of lighting a match within the petrol tank that brought the driver out of his job, thereby exonerating the employer?
3. Is the employer liable for an accident arising out of the workman’s supposed negligence during the discharge of his own duties?

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, R.B. Moondra And Co., urged that although the accident could have happened “in the course of employment” – since the deceased was indisputably performing the task of checking the petrol tank as directed – it essentially did not happen “out of” his employment in a legally compensable sense. The substance of their case was based upon the averment that Gordhansingh’s action in striking a match within an enclosed space in which petrol fumes had previously been present was one of such unimaginable recklessness as to fall far outside any normal or foreseeable means of inspection and amounted to creating a new and novel hazard. This “added risk,” they argued, was incurred by the workman voluntarily and unadvisedly and lay wholly beyond the valid scope and natural hazards of his duties of employment. Therefore, the employer argued that they could not be held responsible for the fatal results of such a manifestly negligent act by the dead workman.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, Mst. Bhanwari, the widow of the deceased, rebutted that during the fatal accident, Gordhansingh was indisputably doing a task specifically tasked to him by his employer – to find the leak in the petrol tank. Hence, the incident beyond doubt took place “in the course of employment.” Moreover, the respondent contended that even if the act of lighting a match may be interpreted as negligent or even reckless, it was an act directly related to and done in the course of his assigned duty of inspection. Negligence on the part of a workman in the performance of their required duties, the respondent claimed, does not necessarily cut the chain of causation between the employment and the consequent accident for the purposes of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The respondent’s lawyer pointed out that the Act offers compensation for accidents arising out of and in the course of employment without any express exclusion for accidents caused by the negligence of the workman. Finally, they contended that the “added peril” doctrine did not apply in this case, as the deceased was actively involved in trying to perform his assigned duty, even if perhaps in a perilously mistaken way.

JUDGEMENT

The Rajasthan High Court, upon due consideration of the facts, evidence, and the legal submissions made by both the parties, passed its judgment dismissing the appeal filed by “R.B. Moondra and Co.” The Court strongly upheld the order of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, thus establishing the liability of the employer to make the prescribed compensation payable to the widow of the deceased, Mst. Bhanwari. Justice Bhargava, in handing down the judgment, categorically held that the accident causing the death of Gordhansingh did, in fact, occur “out of and in the course of his employment.”

The Court’s rationale was based on an essential distinction between how a duty was being done and an act outside the scope of employment. Justice Bhargava stressed that the deceased was explicitly told by his employer to perform the job of inspecting the leak in the petrol tank. Hence, at the very moment of the accident, Gordhansingh was engaged himself in performing a duty which was directly and clearly in pursuance of his employment as a driver. That proved that the accident happened “in the course of employment.”

Addressing the pivotal issue of whether the accident also occurred “out of” the employment, the Court analyzed the immediate action that resulted in the fire – the lighting of the matchstick. Justice Bhargava argued that this action, though negligent or unadvisable, was directly related to the deceased’s effort to perform his assigned task of inspecting the tank to locate the leak. The Court strongly differentiated between carrying out an employment-related obligation in a negligent or mistaken fashion and participating in an activity that is completely unrelated to the employee’s required obligations. In this case, the decedent’s purpose was clearly within his scope of employment.

The Court specifically dealt with and overruled the appellant’s reliance on the doctrine of “added peril.” Justice Bhargava relied on settled legal principles to place emphasis on the rule that if the act of work being undertaken by the workman at the time of the accident is within the purview of his employment obligations, then the quantum of negligence shown in the conduct of the act would be legally irrelevant for the determination of the employer’s liability under the “Workmen’s Compensation Act”. The emphasis is on whether the work performed was included in the employee’s job.

CONCLUSION 

In its final observations, the Rajasthan High Court strongly asserted that the fatal mishap leadin”R.B. Moondra and Co.” The employer’s contention trying to escape liability on the grounds of the deceased’s unquestionably hasty act of lighting a match within a petrol tank was forcefully rejected by the Court. The verdict strongly settled the law that an employer is bound by law to provide compensation under the “Workmen’s Compensation Act” for personal injury, including death, to a workman caused by an accident that occurs during and arises out of employment, even though the negligence or imprudence on the part of the workman in the course of doing their duty directly led to the accident, provided that the act being done was within the purview of their employment duties. The Court also reasoned that even if the deceased ought to have used a safer inspection technique, for instance, with the use of a torch, his possible failure to fully realize the inherent risk, particularly in light of the fact that there was water in the tank, did not exclude the liability of the employer. The inherent purpose of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, being a legislative measure to safeguard the interests of the working community, directed the Court’s judgment to provide reasonable compensation in this tragic situation. As such, the appeal submitted by “R.B. Moondra and Co.” was rejected, and the widow, Mst. Bhanwari’s entitlement to the compensation of Rs. 7000 awarded by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner was categorically confirmed by the Rajasthan High Court.