The elder son of Prem Kumar Biswas was a truck driver with one Bidhan Chander Roy. He met with an accident while on his way to deliver consignment of the owner in the truck from Kolkata (West Bengal) to Lucknow (Uttar Pr

The present problem is similar to the case of 'Jaya Biswas & Ors. V Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.' (SC) (Civil Appeal No. 869 of 2016(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.1903 of 2015 decided on 04/02/2016)). In this case Supreme Court inter-alia observed that the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is a welfare legislation enacted to secure compensation to the poor workmen who suffer from injuries at their place of work. The Preamble of the Act reads, "An act to provide for the payment by certain classes of employees to their amount of compensation for injury by accident". By increasing the importance for the employer of adequate safety devices, it reduces the number of accidents to workmen in a manner that cannot be achieved by official inspection. The Act is a social welfare legislation meant to benefit the workers and their dependents in case of death of workman due to accident caused during and in the course of employment. It has to be proved by the employee that: There was an accident The accident had a casual connection with the employment The accident must have been suffered in the course of employment. In the instant case, the deceased was on way to deliver the consignment during the course of employment when he met with the accident. The accident squarely arose out of and in the course of employment. The contention of the insurance company that the deceased died as a result of his own negligence, doesn't hold ground. Section 3 of the Act, doesn't create any exception of the kind, which permits the employer to avoid his liability if there was negligence on the part of workman. The act does not envisage a situation where the compensation payable to an injured or deceased workman can be reduced on account of contributory negligence. Mere negligence does not entitle a workman to compensation. There was no evidence to prove that there was negligence on the part of the driver. Even if there was any negligence on his part, it would not entitle his dependents from claiming compensation under the Act. It can be said that the award of compensation by the Commissioner was well reasoned and elaborate. The High Court should not have reduced the amount of compensation. It appears the judgement of the High Court suffers from gross infirmity. In view of the above, Prem Kumar Biswas should prefer an appeal before Supreme Court and should succeed.