Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Divisional Manager,United India ... vs Konidala Danamma And 5 Others on 10 November, 2020
Author: R.Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R.Raghunandan Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
C.M.A.No.503 of 2018
JUDGMENT:-
This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the Order dated 17.04.2018 of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation Act, 1923-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nellore in E.C. Case No.8 of 2012.
2. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are the claimants and dependents of the deceased Sri Chenchu Ramaiah alias Chunduru Ramaiah and the respondent No.6 is the owner of lorry bearing No.AP 26Y 4446.
3. The deceased Sri Chenchu Ramaiah alias Chunduru Ramaiah was working as a driver for the respondent No.6. On 09.07.2011 while driving lorry bearing No.AP-26-Y-4446 for delivery of goods from Nellore to Chennai, the deceased suffered heart attack near the uploading point, which was a Factory, at about 11.00 A.M. While unloading at the Factory gate, the deceased complained of severe chest pain, an ambulance was summoned and the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital for medical treatment. However, he was declared dead due to heart attack while being taken to the hospital.
4. Upon the demise of the deceased, claims were made by respondent Nos.1 to 5 as his dependents for compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The appellant herein, who had issued an insurance policy to the respondent 2 No.6, had taken various grounds before the primary authority. After conducting an enquiry including recording of evidence, wherein respondent Nos.1 to 5 had adduced evidence through A.W.1 and insurance company had adduced evidence through R.W.1, the primary authority had upheld the contentions of respondent Nos.1 to 5 and awarded a sum of Rs.6,50,161/- (Rupees six lakhs fifty thousand one hundred and sixty one only) as compensation making appellant and respondent No.6 jointly and severally liable for deposit of the said amount.
5. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant has approached this Court.
6. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that Section 3 (1) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 requires the following conditions to be met before the dependents of the workmen would be entitled for payment of compensation:
1. There should be an accident
2. There should be death or injury caused on account of the accident and
3. The accident and injury should arise out of and in the course of his employment.
He contends that in the present case there is no physical accident and as such there cannot be any claim for compensation.
7. He further relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant 3 Shresthi v Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & another1. It is the contention of Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, had held that unless medical evidence is adduced to demonstrate that the heart attack occurred on account of stress and strain because of the occupation or employment, the dependents of the deceased would not be entitled for any payment.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that a perusal of the evidence would clearly show that no medical professional was examined in the case and there is no evidence to demonstrate that the stress and strain on account of the employment was the reason for the heart attack, due to which, the deceased /employee had passed away.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the present case was decided by the primary authority under the provisions of the Employees compensation Act, 1923 and contends that heart attack is not one of the diseases enumerated under Schedule-III of the said Act nor is stress and strain a factor enumerated under Schedule-IV of the said Act. In view of the absence of these factors in Schedule-III and Schedule-IV, respondent Nos.1 to 3 could not be entitled for any compensation.
10. All these issues have been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including the earlier Judgment cited by the 1 2007 (11) SCC page 668 4 learned counsel for the appellant in its Judgment in 2013 (3) SCC 409.
11. Section 3(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 reads as follows:
(1) If personal injury is caused to an Employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:
Provided that the employer shall not be so liable--
(a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the employee for a period exceeding three] days;
(b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death, caused by] an accident which is directly attributable to--
(i) the employee having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or
(ii) the willful disobedience of the employee to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of employees, or
(iii) the willful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen.
12. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakuntala's case (1 supra) was on the question of payment of compensation on the death of an employee due to a heart attack. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after a review of various Judgments, had held that even a heart attack on account of stress and strain would amount to an accident. (paras 26 to 29). For this reason, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that an accident, as popularly understood, must occur, as a condition for any claim of compensation stands negatived.
5
13. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakuntala's case (1 supra) had held that medical evidence has to be adduced to demonstrate that the stress and strain suffered by the deceased was the cause of death. Para 28, 38 and 40 of the said Judgment would go to show that there is no mandatory rule created by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that compensation cannot be awarded unless there is a medical evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that there has to be material to assume that such stress had been placed on the deceased employee. In the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme court it was held that no evidence has been placed to assume such a situation was available. In the present case the fact that the deceased had driven the vehicle from Nellore to Chennaih is ample evidence about the stress placed on the deceased.
14. In these circumstances, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.
15. Apart from this, the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parampal Singh Vs National Insurance Company and another2 is also relevant. In this case also there was death of a truck driver while on a long journey from Delhi to a place to Nimiaghat, Jharkhand which was about 1152 kms away. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that travel of such a long distance would definitely result in great strain and stress and it would be reasonable to assume 2 2013 (3) SCC 409 6 that such stress could lead to the extent of a heart attack and as such, the dependent of the deceased-employee was entitled for compensation.
16. In the present case, also the heart attack occurred after the deceased had been driving the vehicle and stress and strain can be inferred. In the circumstances, there can be no interference with the order of the primary authority.
17. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this C.M.A, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 10-11-2020 sdp 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO C.M.A.No.503 of 2018 Date : 10-11-2020 sdp