Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Husna Khatoon vs M/S Urmila Transport Company on 20 April, 2009
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Misc Appeal C No 592 of 2007
1. Smt. Husna Khatoon
2. Mohammad Balal Khan
3. Jaki Khan
4. Taki Khan
5. Rajda Khatoon
6. Sajda Khatoon
7. Gulshan
8. Pervej
...Petitioners
Versus
M/s Urmila Transport Company
...Respondents
! Shri M.K. Baeg, Advocate for the appellants
^ Shri Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocate for the respondent
Honble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J
Dated:20/04/2009
: Judgment
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF WORKMAN COMPENSATION ACT.
ORDER
(Passed on 20th day of April, 2009)
1. The instant Miscellaneous appeal has been preferred under section 30 of the Workman Compensation Act, by unfortunate widow and children of deceased Kalim Khan @ Kader Khan, against the award dated 09.03.2007, passed by the Commissioner for Workman Compensation, Labour Court, Korba, in case No. 7/wca/2006, whereby, the Commissioner has dismissed the claim of the claimants.
2. The claimants preferred an application under Section 10 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short `the Act, 1923') claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs only) with interest @ 12 percent per annum on account of sad demise of Kalim Khan, husband of claimant No. 1 and Father of claimant No. 2 to 8.
3. According to the claimants, the deceased Kalim Khan was employed by the respondent as Driver of Truck bearing registration No. CG 12-ZC-2007. On 28.10.2005, while returning from Raipur to Korba, Kalim Khan, having felt tiredness, parked the vehicle on Road side and was sleeping on the back seat of Truck; during sleep suffered heart attack and died. Said accident arose out of and during the course of employment.
4. The respondent remained exparte before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, and did not contest the claim.
5. The Commissioner for Workmen, Compensation, Korba, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the claimants and the material available on the record, held that the claimants have failed to prove that the death of Kalim Khan occurred during the course of employment and dismissed the application.
6. The present appeal has been admitted by this court on the following substantial question of law :
"Whether death of Kalim Khan alias Kader Khan had a casual connection with the nature of his employment? If yes, whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Korba erred in dismissing the application for compensation?"
7. Shri M.K. Baeg, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that death of Kalim Khan alias Kader Khan had a casual connection with the nature of the employment and therefore the learned Commissioner for Workman Compensation has wrongly dismissed the application. Per contra Shri Abhijeet Sarkar, counsel for the respondent supported the award and contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner has not committed any error in dismissing the application.
8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents available on record and also the impugned award. The counsel for the claimants has failed to point out any material from the record to link such heart attack with accidental injury.
9. Only because a person dies of heart attack, the same does not give rise to automatic presumption that the same was by way of accident. A person may be suffering from a heart disease although he may not be aware of the same. Medical opinion will be of relevance providing guidance to court in this behalf. Neither such material has been produced nor any Doctor has been examined to establish that the death was caused by the reason of failure of heart was because of stress and strain of work. Stress and strain resulting in a sudden heart failure in a case of present nature would not be presumed. No legal fiction therefore can be raised. As a person suffering from a heart disease may not be aware thereof, medical opinion therefore would be of relevance.
10. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali And Another, {reported in (2007) 11 SCC-668}, in para 36 held that only because the cause of death was due to heart attack, the same by itself may not be a ground to arrive at a conclusion that an accident had occurred resulting in injury. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held in para 38 that "unless evidence is brought on record to elaborate that the death by way of cardiac arrest has occurred because of stress or strain, the Commissioner would not have jurisdiction to grant damages.................."
11. In view of the legal proposition settled by Supreme Court in the above referred case, and in view of the facts and circumstance of the case, I have no hesitation to hold that the appellants have failed to demonstrate that there is any casual connection between the injury and the accident and the work done in the course of employment. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly against the appellants.
12. The appeal has no merit and is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts situation of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
Judge