IPOH: Disabled due to a spinal injury nine years ago, 28-year-old S. Vadivelan will finally be compensated for an accident which occurred shortly after he left work to grab a bite.

"There should be a leeway for employees to take a break or have a meal outside (their workplace) and return to their jobs or to stop for meals on their way home," ruled High Court judge Datuk V.T. Singham, when dismissing an appeal by the Social Security Organisation (Socso) director-general yesterday.

In both situations, being involved in an accident while going to get food should be considered incidental to an employee's service, he said.

It was to the employers' advantage that their staff feed themselves so that they could perform better, he added.

Singham called for a flexible approach and liberal interpretation of Section 24(1) and Section 24(2) of the Employees' Social Security Act 1969 relating to accidents deemed "to arise out of and in the course of employment".
"Payment is given on a monthly basis to a fund managed by Socso as savings or investment for monetary assistance when there is need.

"Is it fair for Socso to find an excuse to reject the claim for disabled compensation when the monetary assistance was desperately required?" he asked.

On June 8, 1999, Vadivelan, a rubber tapper and oil palm harvester, obtained permission from his employer to leave early to have a meal and was on his motorcycle when he had an accident with a car 15 minutes later, some 3km from his workplace.

He was in a coma and hospitalised for two weeks, and was disabled due to a spinal injury.

Vadivelan applied for disablement benefits on Oct 11, 1999. In a letter dated Jan 24, 2000, he was told that his claim was rejected as the accident was not a work injury because he deviated from his journey when he turned right to a foodstall instead of turning left to go straight home.

Socso's appellate board granted his appeal against the decision on March 31, 2003, but its director-general filed an appeal to the High Court on May 24, 2003.

Singham ruled that Socso should not reject claims "willy-nilly" and deprive insured employees by giving a narrow interpretation of the law.

"If he turned right, he deviated from his journey. If he turned left, he would be going straight home. So answering the call of nature is not allowed."

On another matter, he said it was important for Socso officers to speak in simple terms and use interpreters when recording statements from those who were not conversant in the language they used, so that deserving cases would not be deprived of their claims because their application was incomplete.

Vadivelan was represented by counsel N. Rathi Nair while Y.H. Lim appeared on behalf of Azrina Mohd Isa and Maniam Kuppusamy, lawyers for the Socso director-general.

A delighted Vadivelan said he had been unable to work since his accident in 1999 and that the money would be useful to start a business such as selling ice-cream.

"I have waited more than eight years for this," he said at his family home in Sungai Siput.

Following the accident, Vadivelan was in a coma for two weeks, in a wheelchair for a while and walked with crutches for about two years, before he was able to walk normally, albeit with some pain.

"My back and side still hurt. I cannot lift heavy items or walk for too long because my legs ache."