P.B.CHAKRAVARTHI, C.J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, dated 2 January 1952, by which he awarded a sum of Rs. 3,500 as compensation to the respondent, Rampati Debi, for the death of her son, Bindeswari Ojha, while in the employment of the appellant, the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. The facts of the case are slightly out of the ordinary.
(2.) THE deceased Bindeswari Ojah was a workman employed at the test house maintained by the Electric Supply Corporation at 96, Prinsep Street, Calcutta, He has been described as a durwan, but it appears that his duty was to keep watch over the properties of the appellant at the premises of the test house and he was one of the four persons in the same kind of employment. On 5 May 1950, the deceased was admittedly on duty from 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. He had his quarters within the premises of the test house, and it would appear that two of his colleagues, namely, Nagina and Kanglu, also used to live inside the premises. At 2 a.m. on 6 May one Mr. Bowker received a telephonic message from Abdul who was one of the other dur -wans to the effect that 'something very serious' had happened to Bindeswari Ojha. On receipt of that information Mr. Bowker went to the test house and found the deceased seated on a charpoy with a deep cut wound on his head and neck. The place where he was found was described by Mr. Bowker as 'the small courtyard inside the main gate and close to the room which was his quarters.' No one could say how the deceased had come by his injuries and met his death. There was a coroner's enquiry which resulted in a verdict of murder by a person or persons unknown. There was a police enquiry also which resulted in nothing, because the police were unable to trace the author or authors of the crime and to submit any charge -sheet against anyone.
(3.) THE respondent who is the mother of the deceased then made the present application for compensation on the ground that her son had died by an accident which had happened to him while he was in the employment of the appellant and in the course of such employment. Necessarily, it was pleaded that the accident had arisen out of the employment. No details were given in the petition itself, But a brother of the deceased made the case in the course of his evidence before the Commissioner that on the day in question the deceased had been on double duty, in other words, the hours of his duty had not terminated at 11 p.m., but the first shift had been followed by another which would take it to 3 a. m. It was said that the witness had been given this information by the deceased himself when he had gone to see him at the test house on 5 May at about 8 p.m.;