TYAGI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award given by the Commissioner appointed under the Workmens 'compensation Act, 1923 in favour of respondent Smt. Veera, the widow of late Gurcharan Singh, who was employed in the Rajasthan Canal Project and working on the relevant date as a driver on a jeep which was attached to the Medical Officer of the Project appointed in a dispensary at Suratgarh.
(2.) ON 4th of May, 1968, Gurcharan Singh when he was on duty fell ill. He was removed to his house where he died at about 2 30 p. m His widow Smt. Veera filed a claim in the court of the Rajasthan Work mens' Compensation Commissioner for an amount of Rs. 8,000/- alleging that her husband Gurcharan Singh who was a workman under the provisions of the Act suddenly collapsed while performing his duty and instantaneously died and, therefore, she was entitled to receive a compensation of Rs 8. 000/ -. This claim was contested by the State Government through the Executive Engineer of the Rajasthan Canal Project mainly on the ground that the workman died a natural death According to the State, he did not meet during the course of his employment with any accident causing any injury to the deceased workman and therefore no claim under the provisions of the Act could be made by his widow. The claimant Smt. Veera has filed a certificate of Dr. G. D. Goyal attached to the Dispensary, Suratgarh which shows that Gurcharan Singh died of haemorrhage of the brain. It is common ground between the parties that on the day when Gurcharan Singh died he did not drive the jeep on which he was appointed as a driver because the doctor with whom the jeep was detailed was not present on duty. Gurcharan Singh complained of his ailment and he was immediately removed to his house where he died at about 2. 30 p. m. He was attended by Dr. Goyal but the disease, as mentioned by Dr. Goyal, could not be controlled by him. The question that arises for the determination of this Court in this appeal is whether under the circumstances mentioned above can it be said that Gurcharan Singh died of an injury received by him on account of some accident arising out of and In the course of his employment. Under the provisions of sec. 3 of the Act, the employer can be held liable to pay compensation to the workman or his heir only when the personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Whether in the present circumstances can it be said with any justification that Gurcharan Singh died on account of an injury caused to him by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment ? As given above, the nature of the employment of Gurcharan Singh was to drive a vehicle attached to the medical unit of the Project, but on that day he was not required to drive that vehicle as the doctor was not on duty. He was all through sitting in the office when he felt uneasy and in spite of the medical aid made available to him he died of brain haemorrhage.
(3.) IT is urged by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that it was due to the excessive heat of Suratgarh that the workman died and, therefore, the death shall be attributed to an injury received by his body on account of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. I regret, I cannot accept this argument because the heat of the town where he was serving has no casual relationship with the discharge of his duties as a driver and especially when he was not asked to undergo any strenuous work on that particular day. He was all through sitting in the office and while doing so he got the brain haemorrhage and died. The law on this subject is now settled. The Supreme Court in Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Private Ltd. vs. Ibrahim Mohammad Issak (1) has laid down that in order to attract the provisions of sec. 3 of the Act two things are necessary, namely, (1) injury by accident, and (2) such an injury must arise both out of and in the course of an employment. The learned Judges have explained the meaning of the term "in the course of the employment" and they have laid down that this expression means "in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it. " The other expression "arising out of employment" has also been explained by the learned Judges to mean that "during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered. " The explanation of the aforesaid two expressions used by the legislature while enacting sec. 3 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the injury which has ultimately proved to be the cause of death of a workman must be incidental to the nature of the work which a workman is required to do under the term of his employment and that the nature of the duty involves a particular risk which is incidental to the duties of the service and which, unless engaged in that duty, would not have otherwise suffered. Applying this test to the circumstances of the present case it can safely be laid down that the disease which was the cause of death of the workman had no thing to do with the nature of the work which he was required to perform The deceased workman, therefore, did not suffer any injury in the course of his employment because on that particular day he was not asked to perform the duty for which he was employed, nor can it be said that he developed the disease because of the excessive heat of the town as argued by learned counsel for the respondent because heat of the place has nothing to do with the brain haemorrhage of the deceased and, therefore, even if he got the brain haemorrhage during the duty hours, it is difficult to say that he sustained that injury during the course of the employment. ;