Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sh. Maman Singh vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. on 6 September, 2021
Bench: Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.5146 of 2021
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.25573 of 2017)
SH. MAMAN SINGH & ANR. ... Appellant (s)
Versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
& ANR. ... Respondent(s)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The parents of a person who was employed as a Cleaner in a truck owned by the second respondent and who died while on duty, have come up with the above appeal challenging an order of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur, which set aside the award of the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora
4. On 4.10.2010 a truck belonging to the second respondent, Date: 2021.09.09 17:47:10 IST Reason:
1
carrying pipes to be delivered at Jaipur, commenced journey from Delhi. Shri Mahindra Singh, the son of the appellantsherein, who was then aged about 25 years was in the truck as its cleaner.
5. When the truck was on the move, in a place between Molahera and Kotputli, the son of the appellants admittedly started vomiting and was immediately taken by the driver of the truck to the nearby hospital. But the hospital declared him as brought dead. An unnatural death report was filed with the police station, Kotputli.
6. The appellants filed a claim for compensation before the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 on the ground that the death occurred in the course of and arising out of employment. The Commissioner passed an award on 31.07.2013 directing payment of a sum of Rs.5,96,503/ together with simple interest at 12% per annum, from the date of the accident till the date of payment and funeral expenses of Rs.5000.
7. The appeal filed by the first respondentInsurance Company was allowed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur, on 2 the ground that though the death occurred in the course of employment, it did not arise out of the employment. The High Court relied upon a decision of this Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Another 1. Therefore, the parents of the deceased employee are on appeal before us.
8. At the outset, we should point out that an appeal against the order of the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 awarding compensation, would lie only if a substantial question of law is involved. This is by virtue of the first proviso under Sub section (1) of Section 30 of the Act.
9. In Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti (supra), a person working as a Cleaner in a vehicle suddenly developed chest pain and died, while travelling in the vehicle. The autopsy indicated that the cause of death was cardiac arrest due to Rupture Aortic Aneurysm. This Court, while answering the question whether the deceased died of an accidental injury in the course of and arising out of employment, held that merely because a person died of heart attack, it cannot give rise to a presumption that there was an accident. This Court opined 1 (2007) 11 SCC 668 3 the death must arise out of an accident.
10. But nevertheless this Court also recognized that stress and strain arising during the course of employment could be one of the factors that may lead to the presumption of accidental injury. One of the important principles recognized in paragraph 22 of the said decision in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti (supra), is that if the evidence brought on record establishes a greater probability which satisfies a reasonable man that the work contributed to the causing of the personal injury, the same would be enough for the workman to succeed. This Court agreed that this would be a matter of fact to be established on evidence.
11. The Commissioner, in his order recorded a finding that the appellants established that the goods carrier truck in which the deceased was travelling used to travel long distances and that extreme tiredness and physical weakness due to continuous long journey proved to be injurious to his health.
12. The above factual finding has been overturned by the High Court 4 merely by mechanically applying the law laid down in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti (supra). A finding of fact cannot be overturned by the High Court unless it is perverse, especially in an appeal that would lie only on a substantial question of law.
13. An important factor overlooked by the High Court is that the death in this case was not due to a sudden cardiac arrest as was the case in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti (supra). Admittedly, the deceased started vomiting suddenly and when he was taken to the hospital he was declared as brought dead. The post mortem report indicated congestion and enlargement of the liver as well as the gallbladder. Therefore, the High Court concluded, even in the absence of histopathological FSL Report that no accident arose out of employment. This is wholly presumptuous and the manner in which the High Court interpreted a welfare legislation in this manner, cannot be approved.
14. Therefore, the appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside and the award of the Commissioner is restored. If the compensation has not so far been deposited, the Insurance Company 5 shall deposit the same within four weeks. If it had been deposited and that has not yet been disbursed, the Commissioner, Employees Compensation shall do so after proper identification, within a period of four weeks. No order as to costs.
…..…………....................J. (Hemant Gupta) .…..………......................J (V. Ramasubramanian) SEPTEMBER 06, 2021 NEW DELHI.
6
ITEM NO.19 Court 11 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 25573/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-01-2015 in SBCMA No. 2866/2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur) SH. MAMAN SINGH & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 06-09-2021 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Ankur Mittal, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, AOR Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Adv.
Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The civil appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
7