Madras High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs M.V. Muthu, Balamani, Rajendran, Mohan ... on 22 April, 2003
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P. Sathasivam
JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Madras-6 dated 11-7-94, made in W.C. Case No. 267 of 1992, M/s. United India Insurance Company has preferred the above appeal.
2. In respect of death of one M. Baskaran due to heart attack on 14-3-91 which arose out of and in the course of his employment, his parents and two brothers have filed W.C. Case No.267/92 before the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Madras-6 claiming a compensation of Rs. 85,428/-. Before the said authority, 3rd applicant/claimant, one of the brothers of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 and Dr. N. Perumal as A.W.2. They also marked Exs. A-1 to A-6 in support of their claim for compensation. On the side of the Management-Opposite party, one R. Sundararajan was examined as R.W.1 and Exs. R-1 to R-10 were marked in support of their defence. The Commissioner, after holding that the deceased was a conductor of the respondent-Management and died in the course of his employment, passed an award for Rs. 85,428/- in favour of the claimants. Questioning the said award, the 2nd respondent therein-United India Insurance Company Limited has preferred the above appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, after taking us through the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the materials placed before him, would contend that inasmuch as the death occurred on 14-3-91 in the house of the deceased and not in the course of his employment, the contrary conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner and his ultimate direction for payment of compensation of Rs. 85,428/- cannot be sustained. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents would contend that in the light of the evidence of A.W.1 and A.W.2 and considering the fact that the deceased had died due to stress and strain since he worked continuously from 11-3-91 to 13-3-91, the Commissioner is justified in awarding the compensation as claimed.
5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions.
6. The applicants are father, mother and two brothers of the deceased M. Baskaran. According to them, the deceased M. Baskaran joined the Opposite party Bus Service as conductor in the year 1982. He was paid monthly wages of Rs. 1,000/-. In the application for compensation, it is stated that the said Baskaran died of heart attack on 14-3-91 out of and in the course of his employment. It is also stated that due to over work and strain as well as owing to his continuous duty from 11-3-91 to 13-3-91 he collapsed and died of heart attack on 14-3-91 at 12.30 P.M. at Maduranthagam. It is further stated that at the time of his death, he was aged about 27 years and his monthly wages was Rs. 1,000/-. The Management has filed a counter statement disputing the various averments made in the application for compensation. M. Rajendiran, third applicant, one of the brothers of the deceased was examined as A.W.1. He reiterated the averments and the particulars furnished in the application for compensation. Through him, documents Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. Apart from the evidence of A.W.1, the applicants have also examined one N. Perumal, Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, Maduranthagam as A.W.2, who opined that the deceased had chest pain and that the chest pain occurred on 14-3-91 would have aggravated due to stress and strain. On the side of the Management, the partner of the firm, namely, R. Sundararajan was examined as R.W.1. In his eviodence, he admitted that the deceased at the time of his death was working as a conductor in the bus which was plying between Vedanthangal and Chengalpattu and he was on duty continuously from 11-3-91 morning till 13-3-91. It is further seen that the bus in which the deceased was working commenced its first trip at 5-30 A.M. and the bus has to complete 9 trips in a day. It is also elicited from the evidence of R.W.1 that the driver and conductor while on duty should guard the vehicle during night time while it was in the shed. On appreciation of the evidence of A.W.1 and A.W.2 as well as R.W.1, the Commissioner has arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was working round the clock from 11-3-91 till 13-3-91 with a negligible period of rest. It is also clear from the factual finding of the Commissioner that the deceased worked continuously for more than 48 hours and even during the rest day, he was forced to come to the company to ascertain his duties for the subsequent days. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that in between each trip the driver and conductor had 10 to 15 minutes rest interval, as discussed above, it is clear from the evidence of A.W.1 and R.W.1 that the deceased continuously worked from 11-3-91 till 13-3-91 and it is further seen from the evidence of the Doctor-A.W.2 that though the deceased had chest pain on earlier occasion, due to stress and strain and over work he lost his breath on 14-3-91. In the light of the specific opinion of A.W.2 as well as the admission of R.W.1, we are in agreement with the factual conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner; accordingly we hold that the stress and strain sustained by the deceased conductor during the course of his employment had contributed to his death. It is also brought to our notice a decision of Sengottuvelan, J., in Jayaram Motor Service v. Pitchammal, reported in 1982 L.L.J. Vol.II page 149. In similar circumstance, the learned Judge after quoting the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jondisetti Anjiah v. T. Lakshmiah , has concluded that in order to entitle a workman for compensation there must be a casual relationship between the cause of death and his employment. The learned Judge also observed that on a study of the above decision it was evident that a workman died even after leaving the work as a result of stress and strain which he suffered earlier during the period of work a connection is established between the employment and his death. In the case before the learned Judge, as seen from the evidence of R.W.1, the deceased attended his duty as a night-watchman during the previous night and he worked throughout the night barring a small interval till 6 A.M. on 13-6-72. The duty as a night-watchman throughout the night without sleep will involve strain to the heart and the death in this case had occurred immediately after 1 1/2 hours from the cessation of duty. It was further held that the heart failure must have occurred only as a result of strain which the deceased workman had undergone by keeping awake during the entire night in the course of his duty. In the light of the factual details, the learned Judge accepted the finding of the Additional Commissioner, namely, that the workman sustained his death in the course of his employment. The said decision has been followed by the Commissioner in our case. In the light of the factual details therein, we are in agreement with the said conclusion. In our case also, we have referred to the categorical evidence of A.W.1 and the admission of R.W.1 as well as opinion of the doctor, namely, A.W.2. We are satisfied that the applicants have established by placing acceptable materials that the death on 14-3-91 was caused due to stress and strain sustained by him during the course of his work, namely from 11-3-91 to 13-3-91 continuously and we hereby accept the same. Accordingly, we reject the contra argument of the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. Though no argument was advanced with regard to quantum arrived at by the Commissioner, inasmuch as the applicants have established that the deceased was aged about 27 years old, that he was a conductor by profession, earning Rs. 1,000/- per month as wages, and that they (applicants) are parents and brothers, we are of the view that the amount of Rs. 85,428/-is quite reasonable and acceptable.
8. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any substantial question of law for interference in this appeal, consequently the same is dismissed. No costs.