Kapur, J. - (1.) THIS is a deft.'s appeal against an order passed under the Workmen's Compensation Act by District Judge Dulat acting as Commissioner, Delhi, and awarding Rs. 3,500/ - as compensation with proportionate costs in favour of the applicant, Mrs. Luis Lazarus.
(2.) LAZARUS was employed as an electrician in the press of the Indian News Chronicle, and in the course of his duties he had frequently to go into a heating room and from there to a cooling plant where the temperature was kept considerably low. On 21 -6 -1948, at about 11 p.m. he went into the cooling room and on the same night at 2 a.m. (the 22 -6 -1948) he suddenly felt ill and was sent home. It was there noticed by his wife that he was very cold. At about 3.30 a.m. a doctor was called who diagnosed the disease to be pneumonia. He died on 27 -06 -1948. On 08 -04 -1949, an application for compensation under Section 3, Workmen's Compensation Act was filed in the Court of the Commissioner (Dist. J. Dulat) where Rs. 4,000/ - was claimed. The point for decision in this appeal is whether the facts disclosed in this case are covered by Section 3, Workmen's Compensation Act, hereinafter called the Act. Section 3 of the Act is as follows: 3, Employer's liability for compensation. (1) If personal injury is caused to a Workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that the employer shall not be so liable: (a) in respect of any injury which does not re -suit in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding seven days; (b) in respect of an injury, not resulting in death, caused by an accident which is directly attributable to (i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the wilful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or (iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen.
(3.) TWO contentions were raised. Firstly, that no personal injury was caused to the workman, and, secondly, it was not caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. I am asked to hold that there was no personal injury caused to the workman. The argument was that the word "injury" is used in the sense of some damage or hurt to the employee and it must mean damage or harm to the physical structure of the body and such disease or infection as naturally results therefrom. In other words, actual physical hurt to the body of the employee must appear in order to make an injury compensable. I am unable to agree with this submission. Reference was made to Slazenger Australia Pty. Ltd. v. Ivy Phyllis Eileen Burnatt : 54 C.W.N. 952, where Lord Simonds at p. 955 made the following observations: But this at least is clear that in the Act the word 'injury' (unless the context or subject -matter otherwise indicates or requires) must bear a very artificial meaning in that it is to include a disease which satisfies certain conditions and must, therefore, according to ordinary rules of construction exclude any other disease. But that was an appeal from the New South Wales, and the injury had been described in Section 6(1) of the New South Wales Workers Compensation Act. In the Indian Act there is no definition given of the word "injury.";