Gujarat High Court
Broach Municipality vs Raiben Chimanlal And Ors. on 29 January, 1986
Equivalent citations: 1987ACJ698, [1987(54)FLR93], (1986)2GLR129, (1993)IIILLJ90GUJ
JUDGMENT Ravani, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in Application No. 22 of 1980 directing the appellant-Municipality to pay an amount of Rs. 21,600/- as compensation to the dependents, of deceased workman.
2. The workman was employed as a Driver and he was in service of the Municipality since the year 1951. On Feb. 5, 1980, when he was on duty, he received heart attack at about 2 p.m. and he was taken to hospital by a co-worker named Jadavbhai. The record of the Civil Hospital has been produced in the case and the staff of the Civil Hospital has also been examined in the case. This evidence shows that the deceased was taken to the Civil Hospital where he was given only preliminary treatment. Further treatment could not be given because cardiac machine was not available. As per the case of the dependents of the workmen, from the Civil Hospital the deceased was straight taken to Sevashram Hospital while as per the case of the appellant-Municipality, the deceased was first taken to his house and from his house he was taken to Sevashram Hospital. However, the learned Commissioner found that the deceased was taken to Sevashram Hospital straight from Civil Hospital. Be that as it may. This point is not very much material for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the case. As per the evidence and as found by the learned Commissioner, it is clear that the workman died on account of myocardial infraction (cardiac shock). In above view of the matter, the dependents of the deceased-workman filed application, before Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and claimed compensation. The learned Commissioner, after recording evidence and after hearing the parties, allowed the application and directed the appellant-Municipality to pay an amount of Rs. 21,600/- to the dependents of the deceased workman. It is against the aforesaid judgment and award the Municipality has preferred this appeal. No one appears on behalf of the respondents, though served.
3. In this appeal it is contended on behalf of the appellant-Municipality that the nature of the duty to be performed by the deceased workman was not such that it can be the cause or contributing factor for aggravation of the disease. Therefore, it cannot be said that the workman died due to accident which arose out of and during the course of employment. The contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that as found by the learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, the workman was working as Driver and was driving the tractor attached with a trailor in which dirt and filth was being collected from different parts of the town and was being dumped in a particular place in the town. The deceased workman was required to do this work from morning 7 a.m. up to about 3 p.m. every day. It is proved in the case that on the date of incident, the workman was on duty from 7 a.m. onwards. Simply because the work did not require continuous driving for all the duty hours, it cannot be said that the driving of a tractor would not be a contributory or aggravating cause for the cardiac failure or for myocardial infraction. Academically it may be said that heart-attack may also be sudden one. But ordinarily, it has got to be inferred that strain of work would contribute and/or aggravate the heart disease. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of this High Court in the case of Amubibi v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (18 G.L.R. 681) rendered by D.A. Desai, J. (as he then was). In that case also the workman had died due to heart failure. He was working in a textile mill. Therein it is observed as follows:
"Leaving aside any technical consideration, common course of human conduct or common sense knowledge tells us that coronary insufficiency is generally the consequence of strain, extra work, fatigue. In the case of workman working on a loom in an artificial atmosphere of humidity (formerly called sweated labour) he is shown to have died on account of coronary insufficiency. Heart failure would be preceded by some sort of heart ailment, may be heart attack. In any event, if strain of work causes insufficiency that strain itself would be cause of death and it would be personal injury suffered by an employee in course of his employment."
4. The aforesaid observations would squarely apply to the facts and circumstances or the present case also. The deceased workman was performing his duty as a driver; from 7 o'clock in the morning. He worked up to 2 o'clock. By no stretch of reasoning it can be said that his work did not involve stress and strain. He was required to drive the tractor with trailer and had to move from place to place in the town for collecting the dirt and refuse. Then he was required to unload the same in a particular place in the town. Such type of work would certainly aggravate the disease. If the performance of duty during the course of employment aggravates the disease, then the death can certainly be attributed to the employment injury which he receives on account of strains of the work performed by him. Furthermore, the seat of the driver of a tractor remains incessantly trembling and there will be vibrations in the body of the driver which would also definitely aggravate the heart-disease. In this view of the matter, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has correctly applied the Principle laid down by this High Court in the aforesaid decision.
5. In the result, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner. Hence the appeal is ordered to be dismissed. There Shall be no order as to costs.