Bangalore District Court
No vs Have Categorically Appreciated The ... on 1 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 1st day of March, 2017.
RESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),L.L.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore
E.C.A.No.33/2015
1.Smt. B.G. Geetha, ..... PETITIONERS
Aged about 35 years,
W/o. Chidu Prakash. V.,
C/o. Nagaraju. T.R.,
No.646/74, "Sri Sai Sadhana",
8th 'C' Main, 6th Cross,
RPC Layout, Bangalore - 560 040.
2. Sri.T.C.Mukesh
Aged about 11 years,
S/o Late Sri.V.Chidu Prakash,
Residing at No.646/74,
"Sri Sai Sadhana",8th 'C' Main 6th
Cross, RPC Layout, Bangalore-560040.
Since Minor, Represented by
Smt.B.G.Geetha, Mother of the
proposed Peritioner No.2 and
natural Guardian.
And also at;
"Mathru Krupa", T.P. Kailasam Road,
Sapthagiri Extension, Tumkur.
(By Sri. H.P. Hanumantha Raju, Adv.,)
V/s
2 ECA.NO.33/2015
(SCCH-7)
1. Matrix Energy Pvt. Ltd., ..... RESPONDENTS
A Company incorporated at
Companies Act, 1950,
Having its Registered Office at
D-3, 3rd Floor, Defence Colony,
New Delhi - 110 024.
Represented by its Managing Director.
2. Matrix Energy Pvt. Ltd.,
A Company incorporated at
Companies Act, 1950,
Bangalore Office, Sony Arcade,
No.242, 2nd Floor, 7th Cross, 6th Block,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 085.
Represented by its
Vice President.
(By Sri. N. Amaresh, Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
It is pertinent to note here that, initially, only the Petitioner No.1 has filed the present petition and later, as per the Order dated 08.12.2016 passed on I.A.No.II, the Petitioner No.2 is impleaded as a party to the present petition.
2. The Petitioners No.1 and 2 have filed the present petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 22 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, praying to direct the Respondents to pay a sum of Rupees 34,20,958/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of petition till actual payment and costs.
3 ECA.NO.33/2015(SCCH-7)
3. The brief averments of the Petitioners' case are as follows;
a) The Respondent No.1 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1950. The Respondent No.2 is the Bangalore Office of the Respondent No.1. The Respondents are engaged in the business of manufacturing electric meter software products. The Respondent No.2 appointed the husband of the Petitioner No.1, i.e., Sri. V. Chidu Prakash as a Software Engineer in the Respondent No.2 Company with effect from 07.09.2006. On the same day, the Respondent No.2 issued Appointment Order. As per the Appointment Order, the basic salary of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash was fixed at Rupees 10,000/- per month excluding the other allowance as applicable as per the rules. Further, the work place of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash was indicated as Bangalore and further in the Appointment Order, the Respondent No.2 has also indicated that, the services of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash is liable for transfer to any place as decided by the Company from time to time.
b) Upon recognizing the work efficiency of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash, the Respondents have promoted him as a Senior Software Engineer vide Letter bearing No.Matrix/HR/2007-08 dated 01.12.2007 and he was also given special increment of Rupees 1,500/- per month with effect from 01.11.2007 and thereby, fixing the Gross Salary of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash at Rupees 16,500/- per month. In the said Promotion Letter, the 4 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) Respondents have categorically appreciated the efficiency of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash and he was working as the team leader in the Respondent No.2 Company.
c) The fact that, Sri. V. Chidu Prakash was performing his duties with at most integrity and the approach of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash was excellent and the Respondent No.2 deputed Sri. V. Chidu Prakash to Electricity Board, Head Office at Puducherry, Tamil Nadu, to show a demo of devise to the installed in the electric meter for saving the electricity. Further, Sri. V. Chidu Prakash was also accompanied by Sri. Ravi. S/o. Murali, who is also an employee of the Respondent No.2 Company. Accordingly, Sri. V. Chidu Prakash and Sri. Ravi went to Puducherry on 03.07.2013 for promoting the business of the Respondent Company. As per the directions of the Respondents and after successfully tendering the demo of the product manufactured by the Respondents Company, at the Electricity Board, Head Office, Puducherry, Tamilnadu State, the husband of the Petitioner No.1, i.e., Sri. V. Chidu Prakash and the worker, who had accompanied him, were started from Puducherry to Bangalore on 05.07.2013 at 10.00 p.m. Further, while he was returning to Bangalore, he suddenly felt severe burning sensation in his chest. Therefore, immediately he was taken to Puducherry Government Hospital, where the Doctor examined and declared he died. Thereafter, the Doctors at the Government Hospital, Puducherry, conducted the Postmortem and other examination. Fact of death of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash was also informed to the Puducherry Police Station and 5 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) the Police have also registered the FIR on 05.07.2013. Thereafter, the fact of death was communicated to the Respondent No.2 through Sri. Ravi, one of the employees of the Respondents, who had accompanied Sri. V. Chidu Prakash.
d) The Respondents have also assured that, they are going to pay compensation to the family of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash, i.e., the Petitioner No.1. Thereafter, the Respondents started avoiding them stating that, they are not liable to pay any compensation to her. This conduct of the Respondents is totally contrary to the provisions of the Act and the conduct of the Respondents is nothing but, cheating the family of V. Chidu Prakash, who dedicated entire his life to uplift the business and the name of the Respondents organization. The reason for the sudden demise of the husband of the Petitioner No.1 is because of the stress of work and due to immense pressure given by the Respondents in order to get wide customer range.
e) In view of the non-payment of compensation as required under the Act, the Petitioner No.1 was constrained to issue legal notice through her Advocate on 16.04.2014 calling upon the Respondents to deposit the compensation amount as required under Section 3 of the Act. The legal notice has been duly served upon the Respondents and upon receipt of the Notice dated 16.04.2014, instead of complying the legitimate claim made by her, have sent evasive Reply dated 15.05.2014 denying the claim made by her. This clearly shows that, the Respondents are trying 6 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) to escape from their liability, which is their statutory liability to compensate the family of the deceased employee of the Respondents.
f) Sri. V. Chidu Prakash was drawing the Gross Salary of Rupees 37,150/-, which is evident from the salary certificate issued by the Respondent No.2 for the month of May 2013. She and her son T.C. Mukesh were fully dependent upon Sri. V. Chidu Prakash and he was the sole bread and butter earner of the family of them. Further, after the sudden demise of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash, she is facing severe financial and other problems. It is the duty of the Respondents to compensate the family of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash, who died during the course of employment and as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, they are entitled to claim the compensation. Therefore, they are entitled for the compensation amount of Rupees 34,20,958/- as per Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Respondents have denied the legitimate claim made by them without assigning any reasons. Therefore, they have no option but, to approach this Hon'ble Court to redress their grievances.
g) They have not filed any other application or petition on the same cause of action before this Court or before any other Court except the present petition. Hence, this petition.
4. In response to the notices, the Respondents No.1 and 2 have appeared before this Tribunal through their Learned Counsel. But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, 7 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) the Respondents No.1 and 2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order dated 15.07.2015 passed on I.A.No.I, the written statement filed by the Respondents No.1 and 2 is taken on file.
5. The Respondents No.1 and 2 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioners, have further contended as follows;
a) The present application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is misconceived, vexatious and is a without any cause of action, much less, real rather is a malafide attempt to involve them into a false and frivolous litigation. The captioned Application is not maintainable being filed on the misplaced premise that, Late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash (deceased) died due to personal injury caused by accident arising out of an in the course of employment, whereas, it is admitted the case that, Late Shri. V. Chidu Prakash died due to heart disease, that too, after working hours, i.e., around 10 p.m., on 05.07.2013. In order to claim compensation under the Act, there must be a connection between the injury and the accident and the accident and the work done in the course of employment.
b) As mentioned in final opinion on Post-mortem Report dated 18.09.2013 the cause of death of Late Sri V. Chidu Prakash was 'ischaemic heart disease (natural cause)', thus, Late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash died as a natural result of the disease, from which, he was suffering, therefore, it could not be said that, his death was caused out of his employment. It is settled law that, if a 8 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) workman is suffering from a particular disease and as a result of wear and tear of his employment, he dies of that disease, no liability would be fixed upon the employer. The employment was not the contributory cause or accelerated the death of late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash.
c) The captioned Application has been filed under wrong provision of law. Section 22 of the Act relates to the form of Application to be filed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, whereas, the captioned Application has been filed before this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 22 of the Act.
d) The captioned is bereft of merits besides being abuse of process of law and of Court. No ground let alone tenable and cogent is made out warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court as prayed for by the Applicant.
e) No document, much less, credible has been placed on record by the Applicant to prove that, Late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash died due to personal injury caused by accident arising out of and in the course of employment. No material, much less, reliable has been placed on record to show that, nature of duties were such, which caused heart disease to late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash. Moreover, the onus is upon the Applicant to show that, it was the work and the resulting strain, which contributing to or aggravated the injury and the Applicant has miserably failed in discharging the said onus.
9 ECA.NO.33/2015(SCCH-7)
f) At the outset, the contained in and submissions made in the captioned Application, which are inconsistent with and contrary to the case of them, are collectively and singularly denied as being wrong and false, save and except so far as what is matter of record and what is specifically admitted hereinafter.
g) Promotion of Late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash to the post of Senior Software Engineer and Letter bearing No.Matrix/HR/2007- 08 dated 01.12.2007 are matter of record. Appreciation of working efficiency of Late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash by the Respondents have nothing do with the claim of compensation by the Applicant under the Act. As per the statement given by Mr. Ravi to the Police and recorded in FIR No.139/13 dated 05.07.2013, he and late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash was at PR.PRIDE INN Hotel situated at Kamaraj Road, when Late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash reported burning sensation in chest at 10.00 p.m. The fact of sudden and sad demise of late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash is not denied, but, the reason of his death was (not 'is') unknown to the Respondents as the same had been neither disclosed by the Applicant nor disclosed in Legal Notice dated 16.04.2014 nor shared by the Authorities of Indira Gandhi Government Hospital and Postgraduate Institute, Puducherry, where post-mortem of the dead body was carried out. One thing is crystal clear as being also admitted in the Legal Notice dated 16.04.2014 and further in the captioned Application that, death of late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash was not caused by an accident/injury arising out of and in course of his employment, but, due to Heart Disease, therefore, question of application of the 10 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) Act and payment of compensation there-under by them, does not arise. The act is a statute, which provides for payment of compensation by employer to workmen for injury suffered by accident during the course of employment whereas in the case of hand, it is an admitted fact that, Late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash neither suffered any injury by accident while on duty resulting into his death nor he died of an occupational disease peculiar to his employment. In absence of any material and without prejudice, it was presumed in the Reply dated 15.05.2014 that, burning sensation in chest is suggestive of cardiac arrest. Applicant with mala-fide intentions has deliberately concealed the fact that, they made necessary arrangement to bring the body of late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash to Bangalore and also paid amount towards funeral ceremony, which had been admitted in the Legal Notice dated 16.04.2014. Making of necessary arrangement for bringing the dead body of Late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash back to Bangalore and bearing the expenses of funeral ceremony, is testimony of the fact that, the Respondent is a responsible and sensible employer. The allegation of stress of work and immense pressure given by the Respondents is complete after thought as same has not been even whispered ever before including in the Legal Notice dated 16.04.2014. The work was completed successfully only on 4th July, 2013 and they were in Puducherry on 5th July, 2013 only for giving training not Puducherry Electricity Department people. Late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash never complained about the alleged stress and/or pressure and no evidence in support of said allegation has been filled. No medical 11 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) evidence was either submitted by of Late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash to them or has been place on record by the Applicant showing that, deceased was not fit to work. Late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash ignored the burning sensation in the chest in the morning of 05.07.2013 and causally took some medicine, which proved to be fatal.
h) The factum that, Late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash drew Gross Salary of Rupees 37,150/- in the month of May 2013 is matter of record. There was no whisper in the Legal Notice dated 16.04.2013 about the alleged dependency of Sri. T.C. Mukesh let alone total on his father Late Sri V. Chidu Prakash. Therefore, claim of dependency of Sri. T.C. Mukesh on his father Late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash, is complete after thought. The age of Sri. T.C. Mukesh has not been disclosed. Though sympathy of them has always been with the Applicant and her family, but, their so called suffering and problems are not attributable to the acts and/or omissions of them in any manner whatsoever. Reference to the Act of 1923 and reliance on Section 3 thereof are completely misplaced and of no avail. They do not owe any duty fareless solemn or statutory to compensate the applicant and her family. Whatever was due and payable to the Applicant by them has already been paid and nothing remains to be paid by them. No calculation as to how the said amount has been arrived that has been furnished and further, what is the basis of calculation. They while denying their liability to pay compensation under the Act had assigned valid, cogent and tenable reasons. The present Applicant is gross abuse of process of law and of this Hon'ble 12 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) Court as well. The Respondents are not liable to pay the alleged compensation let alone the amount claimed or any part thereof, much less any interest thereon.
i) The Petitioners are not entitled to any relief to be granted by this Hon'ble Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.
6. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the following Issues;
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, during the course of employment, when deceased V. Chidu Prakash returning from Puducherry to Bangalore on 05.07.2013 at 10.00 p.m., for promoting the business of the Respondents Company, he died?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE Whether the Petitioners prove that, they are the legal representatives 13 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) and dependents of the deceased Sri. V. Chidu Prakash?
7. In order to prove their case, the Petitioners have examined the Petitioner No.1 as P.W.1 and have also examined one witness as P.W.2 by filing the affidavits as their examination- in-chief and have placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. On the other hand, the Respondents have examined their Vice President as R.W.1 by filing an affidavit as his examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4.
8. Heard the arguments.
9. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners Sri. H.P. Hanumantha Raju has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in,
i) 1964 AIR 193 (SC) : 1964 SCR (3) 930 (General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay V/s. Mrs. Agnes), wherein, it is observed that, "If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provision of this chapter".
Held that, under the Rules, a bus driver is given the facility in his capacity as a 14 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) driver to travel in any bus belonging to the undertaking presumably, to enable him to keep up punctuality and to discharge his onerous obligations. It is given to him not as a grace, but, it's of right because efficiency of the service demands it. Therefore, the right of a bus driver to travel in the bus in order to discharge his duties punctually and efficiently was a condition of his service and there was an implied obligation on his part to travel in the said buses as a part of his duty.
Though the doctrine of reasonable of notional extension of employment developed in the context of specific workshops, factories or harbors, equally applies to such a bus service the doctrine necessarily will have to be adapted to meet its peculiar requirements. While in a case of a factory, the premises of the employer which gives ingress of egress to the factory is a limited one, in the case of a city transport service, by analogy the entire fleet of buses forming the service would be the "Premises".
In the present case, therefore, the High Court as right in saying that, the accident occurred to Nanu Raman during the course of his employment and therefore, the Respondent was entitled to compensation.
ii) AIR 1958 SC 881 : (1958) IILLJ 249 SC (Saurashtra Slat Manufacturing V/s. Bai Valu Raja & Others), wherein, it is observed that, There may be some reasonable extension in both time and place and a 15 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his employer's premises. The facts and circumstances of each case will have to be examined very carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of a workman, keeping in view at all times this theory of notional extension.
iii) (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 513 (Jyothi Ademma V/s. Plant Engineer, Nellore and Another), wherein, it is observed that, Labour Law- Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923-S.3- Applicability-Words "personal injury caused... by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment"- Scope-need for causal connection between death of workman and his employment-Held, the employment must be a contributory cause (solely or in addition to a disease) or acceleratory cause of the injury or death- In such a case only can it be said that, the death arose out of the employment and employer would be liable-In present case, workman dying of heart attack at workplace-Workman found to have been suffering from heart disease and receiving treatment therefore, prior to his death at workplace-Work of workman consisting of switching switches on and off only-Doctor clearly opining that, given nature of work, there was no scope for stress of strain in duties of workman-
Hence, High Court rightly held that, death 16 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) of workman did not arise out of and in the course of his employment-words and phrases- "Accident", "injury"- Meanings of.
6. Under Section 3(1) it has to be established that, there was some causal connection between the death of the workman and is employment. If the workman dies as a natural result of the disease which he was suffering or while suffering from a particular disease he dies of that, disease as a result of war and tear of the employment, no liability would be fixed upon the employer. But, if the employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the death, or if the death was due not only to the disease but, also the disease coupled with the employment, then it can be said that, the death arose out of the employment and the employer would be liable.
7. The expression" accident", means an untoward mishap which is not expected or designed, "injury": means physiological injury. In Fenton V. Thorley & Co. Ltd, it was observed that, the expression "accident" is used in the popular and ordinary sense of the work as denoting an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed.
iv) 2005 ACJ 455 High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore (Divisional Controller, North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation V/s. Sangamma and Others), wherein, it is observed that, 17 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923- S.391)-Heart Attack-Arising out of and in the course of employment- Conductor while working in bus suffered chest pain, got admitted in Hospital and died on account of heart attack-Contention that heart attach suffered while working as conductor being a natural event due to physical unfitness or ailment cannot be treated as an injury in an accident arising out of employment-Whether death by heart attack arose out of and in the course of employment and dependants are entailed to compensation- Held: yes; word "accident' is used in Section 3 must be interpreted as untoward or an unexpected incident taking place during the course of employment on account of pressure and fatigue of work and strain of traveling during night time.
The word 'accident' in the context in which it is employed has to be given very wide and liberal meaning to make Section (3) of the Act purposeful and meaningful, so that, the object of the legislation is achieve. If it is so done the work 'accident' can be understood in the context as an event or incident taking place unexpectedly or suddenly.
10. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents No.1 and 2 Sri. N. Amaresh has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in, 18 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7)
i) 1998 SCC KAR 464 (Ananthamma V/s. Managing Director, Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., Raichur), wherein, it is observed that,
3. On 08.12.1979 at 8.45 a.m., when he was attending his work as such in the factory premises his Complainant-worker (Ramesh) S/o Bhaskar heard voice of the deceased saying "ham'. Then, Suresh sensed the danger in the health condition of the deceased. therefore, with the permission of the incharge-Shift-officer of Respondent 1-factory, he took the deceased along with him to the City bus-stop at Hubli to take him to the Hospital, while they were waiting for a bus at the said bus-stop the deceased once again gasped his breath saying "ham' and collapsed there. Thereafter, appellant gave an application to the commissioner for grant of compensation.
4. During enquiry, the statements of Suresh and of the claimants were recorded by the Commissioner. The defence of Respondent-employer before the Commissioner was that, the death of the deceased was not due to any injury caused to him during the course of the employment.
5. In the light of relevant material brought on record during enquiry, the defence of Respondent 1 was upheld by the Commissioner and the clients' application was rejected by him by his impugned order.
6. Undisputedly, there is not an iota of material placed on record from the claimant's side even remotely suggesting 19 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) that, any injury of whatever nature was caused to the workman Ramulu while he was attending his duty in Respondent 1 factory much less, the personal injury resulting in his death. Section 3 of the act creates liability of the employer for payment of compensation to his workman in respect of the injury caused to him in the course of the employment. The material portion thereof reads-
3. Employer's liability for compensation
-
(1) If personal injuries caused to a workman by accident arising out of an in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this chapter:
Provided that,.....".
7. The plain reading of this material provision sub-section (3) makes it crystal clear that, an employer's liability o pay compensation to a workman arises only if the personal injury is caused to the workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. In the instant case it is nobody's case that, any personal injury was caused to the deceased or that, any injury was caused by an accident occurred while he was discharging his duty in the course of his employment. On the other hand the circumstances in which the deceased breathed his last are clearly indicative of the fact that he died of heart failure. Therefore no fault could be found 20 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) with the impugned order of the Commissioner.
8. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
ii) (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 513 (Jyothi Ademma V/s. Plant Engineer, Nellore and Another), wherein, it is observed that, Labour Law - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923-S.3- Applicability-Words "personal injury caused... by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment"- Scope-need for causal connection between death of workman and his employment-Held, the employment must be a contributory cause (solely or in addition to a disease) or acceleratory cause of the injury or death- In such a case only can it be said that, the death arose out of the employment and employer would be liable-In present case, workman dying of heart attack at workplace-Workman found to have been suffering from heart disease and receiving treatment therefore, prior to his death at workplace-Work of workman consisting of switching switches on and off only-Doctor clearly opining that, given nature of work, there was no scope for stress of strain in duties of workman-
Hence, High Court rightly held that, death of workman did not arise out of and in the course of his employment-words and phrases- "Accident", "injury"- Meanings of.
21 ECA.NO.33/2015(SCCH-7)
iii) (2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases 668 (Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti V/s. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Another), wherein, it is observed that, A. Labour -Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923-S.3-Death due to cardiac arrest (heart attack) while workman was at work- Entitlement to compensation -Requirements for-Factors that, need to be established- p[leading and proof necessary-held, only because a person dies of heart attack, the same does not give rise to automatic presumption that, the same was caused by way of accident -no legal fiction can be raised therefore- Circumstances must be shown to exist that, the death caused by reason of cardiac arrest was because of stress and strain of work-medical opinion would be relevant and each case has to be considered on its own facts and no hard and fast rule can be laid down therefore-
Unless evidence is brought on record to establish that, death by way of cardiac arrest was because Orthopedic Surgeon stress and strain of work, the Commissioner would have no jurisdiction to grant damages-Tort law-Compensation/Damages- Evidence act, 1972, Ss 114 and 45 -Words and Phrases-"injury".
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. Circumstances must exist to establish that, death caused by reason of failure of the heart was because of stress and strain of work. Sufferance of heart disease amongst young person's is not unknown. A disease of the heart may 22 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) remain undetected. A person may suffer mild heart attack but, he may not feel any pain. Stress and strain resulting in a sudden heart failure in a case of the 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. Each case therefore, has to be considered on its own facts and no hard and fast rule can be laid down therefore. 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. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative,
The Petitioners are
entitled for compensation
of Rupees 34,76,668/-
with interest at the rate of
12% p.a. from 05.08.2013
till the date of payment,
from the Respondents No1
and 2.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
Additional : In the Affirmative,
Issue
for the following;
23 ECA.NO.33/2015
(SCCH-7)
REASONS
12. ADDITIONAL ISSUE :- The P.W.1, who is the
Petitioner No.1 has stated in her examination-in-chief that, her husband Sri. V. Chidu Prakash and Sri. Ravi were started from Puducherry to Bangalore on 05.07.2013 at 10.00 p.m., to back Bangalore and her husband suddenly felt severe burning sensation in chest and therefore, he was immediately taken to Puducherry Government Hospital by the said Ravi, who accompanied him, where the Doctor after examination, declared him to be dead. The Petitioner has not produced any authenticated documents to consider the relationship of her and the Petitioner No.2 with the said deceased Sri. V. Chidu Prakash. But, it no way affects to consider the relationship of the Petitioners and the said deceased Sri. V. Chidu Prakash, as, the Petitioners have produced Ex.P.4 Appointment Letter dated 07.09.2006, Ex.P.4 Letter dated 01.12.2007, Ex.P.5 Death Certificate relating to V. Chidu Prakash, Ex.P.6 Service Certificate dated 29.07.2013, Ex.P.7 Post Mortem Examination Report, Ex.P.8 Final Opinion on Post Mortem Report, Ex.P.9 FIR, Ex.P.10 Complaint in Tamil Language, Ex.P.10(a) English Translation copy of Ex.P.10 Complaint and Ex.P.11 Pay Slips 2 in numbers, which clearly disclosed that, the Petitioner No.1 is a wife and the Petitioner No.2 is a minor son of the deceased Sri. V. Chidu Prakash, who died on 05.07.2013. The said relationship of the Petitioners with the said deceased is not disputed by the Respondents during the course of cross-examination. Further, the 24 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) P.W.1 in her cross-examination has clearly stated that, she married with the deceased 8 years back. Therefore, based on the said material evidence, which is very much available on record, it can be safely held that, the Petitioner No.1 is a wife and the Petitioner No.2 is a minor son of the deceased Sri. V. Chidu Prakash and as such, they are the legal representatives of the said deceased. Hence, the Petitioner No.1 being a wife and the Petitioner No.2 being a minor son, are the dependants upon the said deceased. Accordingly, I answered Additional Issue in the Affirmative.
13. ISSUE NO.1 :- The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner No.1 has stated in her examination-in-chief that, the Respondents have appointed her husband Sri. V. Chidu Prakash as Software Engineer in their Company at Bangalore Branch, with effect from 07.09.2006 and the work place of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash was indicated as Bangalore and services of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash is liable for transfer in such capacity as the Company may decide from time to time to any other location, department, establishment or any their branch of the Company. She has further stated that, upon recognizing the efficiency, commitment to work and contribution of her husband Sri. V. Chidu Prakash to the Respondents Company, the Respondents promoted him as a Senior Software Engineer vide Letter bearing No.MARTIX:HR:2007-08 dated 01.12.2007 and gave special increment of Rupees 1,500/- per month with effect from 01.11.2007 and fixed his Gross Salary at Rupees 16,500/- per 25 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) month. She has further stated that, in the said promotion letter, the Respondents have categorically appreciated the work efficiency of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash and as far as terms and conditions of his appointment remained unchanged. She has further stated that, her husband at the time of his death was working as the team leader in the Respondents Company and her husband Sri. V. Chidu Prakash was working as a team leader in the Respondent Company and the work pressure was too high as he was involved both in developing the software as well as in promoting the sales of the same and to promote their business, the Respondents were deputed her husband Sri. V. Chidu Prakash to various locations/places to show demonstrations of their products. She has further stated that, when the work pressure was bottled up, the Respondent Company deputed her husband Sri. V. Chidu Prakash to show a demo of device to be installed in the Electric meter for saving the electricity to the Electricity Board, Head Office at Puducherry, Tamilnadu, with one Sri. Ravi S/o. Murali, who is working as Technician in the Respondent Company, accompanied her husband Sri. V. Chidu Prakash to Puducherry, Tamilnadu and her husband Sri. V. Chidu Prakash and said Sri. Ravi went to Puducherry on 03.07.2013 to show demo of device to be installed in the electric meter for saving the electricity. She has further stated that, after successfully tendering the demo of the product manufactured by the Respondents Company, at the Electricity Board, Head Office, Puducherry, Tamilnadu State, as per the direction of the Respondents, her husband Sri. V. Chidu Prakash and Sri. Ravi started from Puducherry to Bangalore on 05.07.2013 26 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) at 10.00 p.m. and when they started back to Bangalore, her husband suddenly felt severe burning sensation in his chest and therefore, he was immediately taken to Puducherry Government Hospital by Sri Ravi, who accompanied him, where the Doctor after examination, declared him to be dead. She has further stated that, Sri. Ravi lodged a private complaint before the Puducherry Police Station reporting the death of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash and the Police registered the FIR on 05.07.2013 and thereafter, the Doctors at Government Hospital, Puducherry conducted the post mortem and other examination and the said Sri. Ravi, who accompanied her husband communicated the death of her husband Sri. V. Chidu Prakash to the Respondent No.2. She has further stated that, as per the final opinion on Post mortem Report dated 18.09.2013, the cause of death of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash is "ischaemic Heart Disease", which is called as "heart attack" in common parlance and the Doctors have noted it as a "natural cause" to indicate that, it is not an unnatural death. She has further stated that, her husband died while returning to Bangalore as per the instructions of the Respondent Company, i.e., during the course of his employment and work pressure in by has accelerated the death of her husband and hence, the death of her husband arose out of and in the course of his employment. She has further stated that, the reason for the sudden demise of her husband is because of the stress of work and due to immense pressure given by the Respondents in order to get wide customer range.
27 ECA.NO.33/2015(SCCH-7)
14. On perusal of the said oral evidence of P.W.1, it appears that, the deceased Sri. V. Chidu Prakash had severe burning sensation in his chest on 05.07.2013 at 10.00 p.m., when he was started back to Bangalore from Puducherry and when he was immediately taken to Puducherry Government Hospital by his Co-worker Sri. Ravi S/o. Murali, after examination, the Doctor declared him as dead. From this, it appears that, after attending duty, which was entrusted by his employer, when the deceased came back to Bangalore, he died due to Heart attack. Further, the P.W.1 in her cross-examination has stated that, she does not know that, before the employment under the Respondents, where her deceased husband was working and under whom and she has no idea about the nature of work of her husband during the course of employment under the Respondents and she does not remember that, during the course of employment, her deceased husband often visited the places and she has no idea whether her deceased husband was given his job of demo at morning hours or afternoon on 05.07.2013 and she does not know that, the alleged incident was taken place during the discharge of official duty of her deceased husband and she don't know that, her deceased husband had not sustained any employment injury. Further, the P.W.2, who has lodged a complaint and who was accompanied with the deceased at the time of alleged incident, has stated in his cross-examination that, before the incident, he did not now that, the said Sri. V. Chidu Prakash had such problem and previous day of incident, he was not accompanied with the deceased to go to the Hospital. Further, the R.W.1, who is the Vice President of 28 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) the Respondents No.1 and 2 Company, has stated in his examination-in-chief that, late Sri. V. Chidu Prakash, who is the husband of the Petitioner died due to personal health problem, but, not out of the accident or injury arising out of and during the course of employment and he died due to heart attack. He has further stated that, the deceased and his friend Sri. Ravi have finished their work at 11.00 a.m. on 05.07.2013 and the incident of death has taken place at around 10.00 p.m. when they are preparing to return to Bangalore from Puducherry and the demo work entrusted to them is not hazardous work and the demo of the energy saver instrument was demonstrated by Sri. V. Chidu Prakash through the media, i.e., computer, no physical work is involved. He has further stated that, the final opinion of the Postmortem Report dated 18.09.2013 mentions the cause of death as "ischaemic Heart Disease natural cause", and Sri. V. Chidu Prakash died as a natural result of the disease, from which, he was suffering and therefore, no liability would be fixed on the Respondent employer. He has further stated that, Sri. V. Chidu Prakash neither suffered any injury by accident while on duty resulting into his death nor he died of an occupational disease peculiar to his employment and the Respondent Company made all necessary arrangements to bring the body of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash. He has further stated that, the death of the husband of the Petitioner is not because of work stress and due to immense pressure given by the Respondents in order to get wide customer range and the work was completed successfully on 4th July 2013 and they were in Puducherry on 05.07.2013 only for giving 29 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) training to Puducherry Electricity Department Employees. He has further stated that, the Complainant as well as Mr. Ravi in his affidavit falsely mentioned that, there used to be stress for both of them, which is a false allegation as evident from the attendance records of Late Mr. Chidu Prakash and Mr. Ravi Kumar that, they used to work average approximate 9 hours a day with great flexibility to come late to the office. He has further stated that, the attendance records as signed by both Late. Mr. Chidu Prakash and Ravi Kumar on daily basis include their office in time and out time, which clearly demonstrates that, there was no stress to both of them. He has further stated that, the deceased never complained about the alleged stress or pressure at any point of time and the deceased felt burning sensation in the chest on 05.07.20123 in the morning hours, but, he ignored and neglected the same and he took it very casually by not consulting a Doctor and therefore, it is submitted that, the Respondent Company is not liable to compensate the Petitioners under the Employees Compensation Act.
15. But, based on the evidence elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 and P.W.2 by the Respondents during the course of their cross-examination, the death caused to Sri. V. Chidu Prakash, when he was started back to Bangalore from Puducherry, the cause of death is "Ischaemic Heart Disease" shown in the Postmortem Report as well as the said oral evidence of R.W.1, it cannot be thrown away to above said oral evidence of P.W.1, which has been stated by her in the examination-in-chief and it 30 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) cannot be said and come to the conclusion that, the deceased Sri. V. Chidu Prakash died due to personal health problem and not due to accident or injury arising out of during the course of employment as both the deceased and the P.W.2 Sri. Ravi were preparing to return to Bangalore from Puducherry after finishing their entrusted work and the demo work entrusted to them is not hazardous work and the sudden death of the said deceased had not taken place, which was not arising out of during the course of employment and he neither suffered any injury by accident while he was on duty, which resulting into his death nor on occupational disease not because of work stress, as, before the incident, the deceased never complained about the said stress or pressure at any point of time and as such, his death is natural one, as, it is very much clear from the said oral evidence of R.W.1 that, as on the date of incident, the deceased was on duty under the Respondents No.1 and 2 and on that day, he was finishing his entrusted work by his employer, i.e., the Respondents No.1 and 2 and he was coming back to Bangalore along with his co-worker, i.e., P.W.2, which disclosed that, at the time of accident, he was working under the Respondents No.1 and 2 and during the course of employment under the Respondents No.1 and 2, the said incident was taken place to the deceased. Further, though the Respondents No.1 and 2 have adduced their oral evidence through R.W.1, in support of their specific defence, no material documentary evidence is produced. Further inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the R.W.1 has not tendered for cross- examination by the Petitioners. When the R.W.1 is not tendered 31 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) for cross-examination by the Petitioners, whatever stated by him in his examination-in-chief remains as such and it has no evidentiary value at all. Further, the Respondents have produced Ex.R.1 Attendance Register relating to V. Chidu Prakash for the Months of April 2013, May 2013 and June 2013, Ex.R.12 Email Address of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash and Ex.R.13 True Copy of Email, which clearly disclosed that, at the time of incident, the deceased was working as an Associated Manager under the Respondents No.1 and 2 and during the course of employment under the Respondents, the incident was taken place to him. Further, to corroborate the oral version of P.W.1, the Petitioners have produced Ex.P.3 Appointment Letter dated 07.09.2006, Ex.P.4 Letter dated 01.12.2007, Ex.P.5 Death Certificate Relating to Chidu Prakash. V., Ex.P.6 Service Certificate dated 29.07.2013, Ex.P.7 Postmortem Examination Report, Ex.P.8 Final Opinion on Postmortem Report, Ex.P.9 FIR, Ex.P.10 Complaint in Tamil Language, Ex.P.10(a) English Translation Copy of Ex.P.10 Complaint and Ex.P.11 Pay Slips 2 in numbers, which clearly disclosed that, at the time of incident, the deceased was working under the Respondents No.1 and 2 and the relationship in between the deceased and the Respondents was that of employee and employer and on 05.07.2013, the deceased along with his co- worker Sri. Ravi S/o. Murali, had completed the work entrusted by his employer, i.e., the Respondents, at Puducherry and he died "Ischemic Heart Disease", he died due to heart attack, i.e., natural death and not otherwise. Further, it is not the defence taken by the Respondents that, since many years, the deceased was having 32 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) heart disease. Further, it is clearly mentioned in Ex.P.7 Postmortem Report that, external natural orifices normal and the cause of death of the deceased Sri. V. Chidu Prakash was due to "Ischemic Heart Disease, which is a natural cause of death". Further, Ex.P.6 Service certificate dated 29.07.2013 issued by the Respondents clearly disclosed that, the deceased was working from 07.09.2006 to 05.07.2013, i.e., till the date of his death under the Respondents No.1 and 2. Furthermore, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has clearly denied the suggestions put to her by the Respondents during the course of cross-examination that, her deceased husband was suffering from heart diseases and he was in the habit of smoking of cigarette and the cause of death of her deceased husband is not due to pressure of work under the Respondents and the death not caused to her deceased husband during the course of employment, but, because of weak heart. From this, it appears that, though the P.W.1 has been cross- examined by the Respondents nothing has been elicited from her mouth to consider specific defence. Further, the Petitioners have examined the co-worker Sri. Ravi S/o. Sri Murali, who was accompanied with the deceased at the time of incident as P.W.2, who has clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that, he was working as a Hardware Engineer under the Respondent No.2 Company and he was assigned with the work of product testing and he worked in the Respondent No.2 Company for about 1 ½ year to 2 years and he resigned from the Respondent No.2 Company in the year 2013. He has further stated that, he knows V. Chidu Prakash during the course of his employment in the 33 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) Respondent No.2 Company and V. Chidu Prakash was working as a Software Engineer in the Respondent No.2 Company and he and V. Chidu Prakash were working together for the projects that was assigned by the Respondent No.2 Company. He has further stated that, V. Chidu Prakash was hale and healthy and in his Company, he never came across him suffering from any health problems more particularly cardiac problems. He has further stated that, he accompanied V. Chidu Prakash on several occasions to out- stations on Company's work and he have the knowledge of him going to out-stations on Company's work even with others and he accompanied Sri. V. Chidu Prakash to Puducherry for the first time on Company's work during the month of February-March 2013 and they went to Puducherry to give demonstration of Respondent's Company product and to install Company's product and during the said period, they stayed in Puducherry for a night. He has further stated that, he accompanied V. Chidu Prakash to Puducherry for the second time in the month of July 2013 and they went to Puducherry on 03.007.2016 and were scheduled to work in Puducherry for three days and he and V. Chidu Prakash went to Puducherry on Company's work to give demo of the product manufactured by the Respondent Company and there was no fixed working hour during their employment with the Respondent No.2 Company and the working hour was totally unpredictable, especially, when they were entrusted to work on out-stations to promote the Company's business. He has further stated that, they were working till late night, which was extended up to 10.00 p.m., to 11.00 p.m. or even further and when he and 34 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) V. Chidu Prakash went to Puducherry on 03.07.2013 to give demo of the Company's product, they worked till late night till 10.00 p.m., or till completion of the work. He has further stated that, on 05.07.2013, i.e., on the last day of their Puducherry work schedule they went to Electricity board, Head Office at Puducherry to give demonstration of the Company's product and on the said date, they worked till 9.00 p.m., by giving demo of the Company's product and promoting the Company's business and after successfully tendering the demo of the Company's product, he and V. Chidu Prakash started their journey back to Bangalore from Puducherry and at that point of time, V. Chidu Prakash reported severe burning sensation in his chest and he immediately took V. Chidu Prakash to Government Hospital, Puducherry and the Doctors at Government Hospital, Puducherry examined V. Chidu Prakash and declared him dead and thereafter, the Doctors at Government Hospital, Puducherry conducted the post-mortem and other medical examinations of the dead body of V. Chidu Prakash and the Puducherry Police was also informed about the death of V. Chidu Prakash and FIR was also registered in that regard. He has further stated that, thereafter, he communicated the death of V. Chidu Prakash to the Officers of the Respondent No.2 Company. He has further stated that, V. Chidu Prakash died during the course of his employment as both of them went to Puducherry to give demo of Company's product in order to promote Respondents Company business and worked till late night and since, there was no scheduled working hours more particularly during the outstation works/projects, they were put 35 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) to immense pressure and stress. He has further clearly stated in his cross-examination that, since 1 ½ hours, he knows the deceased V. Chidu Prakash, when he joined their Company and when they went to Puducherry to give demo of Energy Meters and the demo work took half a day time physically they fixed the said Energy Meter and thereafter, they are explaining its use, i.e., demo and as on the date of incident, up to 7.00p.m., they were worked and he lodged a complaint about the death of V. Chidu Prakash and as on the date of incident, they were shown the demo in the field. From the said evidence of P.W.2, it is made crystal clear that, after completion of work entrusted by the Respondents, the deceased and the P.W.2, started back to Bangalore and at that time, the deceased was suffering from severe burning sensation in his chest and when he was shifted to Government Puducherry Hospital after examination by the Doctor, he declared dead and during the course of employment under the Respondents, the said incident was taken place to the said deceased. The said oral evidence of P.W.2 is clearly corroborated with the oral evidence of P.W.1 as well as the contents of Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.11 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3.
16. The contents of Ex.P.3 Appointment Letter dated 07.09.2006, Ex.P.4 Letter dated 01.12.2007, Ex.P.6 Service Certificate dated 29.07.2013, Ex.P.11 Pay Slips, Ex.R.1 Attendance Register, Ex.R.2 Email Address of Chidu Prakash and Ex.R.3 True copy of Email clearly disclosed that, at the time of incident, the deceased was working as an Assistant Manager 36 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) under the Respondents No.1 and 2 Company. Based on this, it can be safely held that, the relationship in between the deceased V. Chidu Prakash and the Respondents No.1 and 2 is that of employee and employer at the time of incident and he was working under the Respondents at the time of incident.
17. The contents of Ex.P.5 Death Certificate, Ex.P.7 Postmortem Examination Report, Ex.P.8 Final Opinion on Postmortem Report, Ex.P.9 FIR, Ex.P.10 Complaint in Tamil Language and Ex.P.10(a) English Translation Copy of Ex.P.10 Complaint disclosed that, after completing the entrusted work by the Respondents No.1 and 2, i.e., his employer, the deceased was returning back to Bangalore along with his co-worker, i.e., the P.W.2, he had severe burning sensation in his chest and when the P.W.2 shifted him to the Government Hospital, Puducherry, after examination, the Doctor declared him as dead and the death is natural.
18. From the above said material evidence, both oral and documentary, it is clearly proved that, during the course of employment under the Respondents, due to pressure of work and stress, the deceased Chidu Prakash. V. had suffered chest pain and died while returning back to Bangalore and the relationship in between the said deceased and the Respondents was that of employee and employer. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
37 ECA.NO.33/2015(SCCH-7)
19. ISSUE NO.2 :- The Petitioners have not produced any authenticated documents to consider the actual age of the deceased at the time of incident. But, the above referred Police and medical documents clearly disclosed that, at the time of incident, the deceased was 39 years old. Hence, the age of deceased is considered as 39 years at the time of incident.
20. The P.W.1 has stated that, as per Appointment Order dated 07.09.2006, the basic salary of her husband was fixed at Rupees 10,000/- per month excluding the other allowances as applicable as per the policy/rules. She has further stated that, the Respondents promoted her husband as Senior Software Engineer vide Letter bearing No.MARTIX:HR:2007:08 dated 01.12.2007 and gave special increment of Rupees 1,500/- per month with effect from 01.11.2007 and fixed his Gross Salary at Rupees 16,500/- per month. She has further stated that, her deceased husband V. Chidu Prakash was drawing the Gross Salary of Rupees 37,150/-, which is evident from the salary certificate issued by the Respondent No.2 for the month of May, 2014. The P.W.2 has stated that, he knows Chidu Prakash and during the course of his employment in the Respondents Company, Sri. V. Chidu Prakash was working as a Software Engineer and he and the deceased were working together for the projects that were assigned by the Respondents Company. The R.W.1 has stated in his examination- in-chief that, the deceased went to Electricity Board Head Office at Puducherry only for 2-3 days with one Hardware Engineer in connection with demonstration of a device capable of saving 38 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) electricity as well as for checking correcting the fault in already installed system and on 05.07.2013, they have finished their work by 11.00 a.m. As this Tribunal has already observed about the production of Ex.P.3 Appointment Letter dated 07.09.2006, Ex.P.4 Letter dated 01.12.2007, Ex.P.6 Service Certificate dated 29.07.2013 and Ex.P.11 Pay Slips of the deceased and Ex.R.1 Attendance Register, Ex.R.2 Email Address of Chidu Prakash. V. and Ex.R.3 Email produced by the Respondents. On perusal of the said oral evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and R.W.1 coupled with the contents of the said material documents, it is clearly proved that, at the time of incident, the deceased was working as Assistant Manager in the Respondents No.1 and 2 Company. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that, during the course of employment under the Respondents No.1 and 2, the deceased died. Ex.P.11 Pay Slips are relating for the months April 2013 and March 2013. The date of incident is 05.07.2013. The Petitioners have not produced the pay slip for the month of June 2013, which is relating to last drawn salary of the deceased. Even, the Petitioners have not examined the employer. Under such circumstances and in the absence of the material documents, based on the contents of Ex.P.11 Pay Slips, this Tribunal considered that, the actual income of the deceased was of Rupees 37,150/- per month at the time of incident.
21. The P.W.1 has stated that, she and her minor son T.C. Mukesh were completely dependents on the deceased Chidu 39 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) Prakash and he was the sole bread earner of their family and after the sudden demise of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash, they are facing severe financial and other problems.
22. While answering Additional Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that, the Petitioners are the legal representatives and dependants upon the said deceased Sri. V. Chidu Prakash. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that, during the course of employment under the Respondents, due to pressure of work and stress, the deceased suffered chest pain and died while returning back to Bangalore and the relationship in between the said deceased and the Respondents was that of employee and employer. Hence, the Petitioners being the wife and a minor son, are entitled for compensation under the following heads.
23. The factors, which determine the amount of compensation, is already decided by this Tribunal in the above said discussion and Issues.
24. The income of the deceased is already held at Rupees 37,150/- per month. As per Section 4(1)(a) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, where death results from the injury, an amount equal to 50% of the monthly wages of the deceased, i.e., employee multiplied by the relevant factor or an amount of Rupees 1,20,000/-, whichever is more shall be considered. Therefore, the 40 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) income per month comes to Rupees 18,575/- (Rs.37,150/- x 50%).
25. As this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 39 years. The applicable multiplier corresponding to the said age of 39 years as per Schedule IV is 186-90. Therefore, the loss of dependency arising out of the death of the deceased Sri. V. Chidu Prakash for monthly income of Rupees 18,575/- by applying multiplier 186-90 comes to Rupees 34,71,667-50, i.e., (Rupees 18,575/- x 186-90). Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for Rupees 34,71,667-50, which is rounded off Rupees 34,71,668/- towards loss of dependency due to death of Sri. Chidu Prakash.
26. As per Section 4(4) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, the employer shall pay not less than Rupees 5,000/- towards the expenditure of the funeral of the deceased employee. Therefore, the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rupees 5,000/- towards funeral expenses.
27. In this way, the Petitioners are entitled for the following amount of compensation:-
Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 34,71,668-00
2. Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000-00 TOTAL Rs. 34,76,668-00 41 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7)
28. In all, the Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rupees 34,76,668/-.
29. The P.W.1 has stated that, the Respondent Company agreed that, the death of Sri. V .Chidu Prakash is out and in the course of employment and hence, they assured that, they are going to pay compensation to her on account of death of her husband Sri. V. Chidu Prakash and the Respondents subsequently started avoiding her stating that, they are not liable to pay any compensation and the conduct of the Respondents is totally contrary to the provisions of the act and the earlier assurance given by them and hence, the conduct of the Respondents is nothing, but, cheating the family of deceased Sri. V. Chidu Prakash, who dedicated his entire life to uplift the business and the name of the Respondent Company. She has further stated that, in view of the non-payment of compensation as required under the Workmen Compensation Act, she was constrained to issue Legal Notice dated 16.04.2014 to the Respondents calling upon them to deposit the compensation amount as required under Section 3 of the Act and the said legal notice has been duly served upon the Respondents and upon receipt of the said notice, instead of complying with the provisions of the said Act and accepting the legitimate claim made by her, the Respondents have sent an evasive Reply dated 15.05.2014 denying her legitimate claim. She has further stated that, this clearly shows that, during the course of employment under the Respondents due to pressure of work and stress, he suffered chest 42 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) pain and died while returning back to Bangalore and the relationship between the said deceased and the Respondents was that of employee and employer and the Respondents are trying to escape from their statutory liability to compensate the family of the deceased employee. She has further stated that, it is the duty of the Respondents to compensate the family of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash, who died out of and during the course of employment and as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, she is entitled to claim the compensation, but, the Respondents have denied the legitimate claim made by them without assigning any reasons.
30. The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.1 Office Copy of Legal Notice dated 16.04.2014 and Ex.P.2 Reply dated 15.05.2014.
31. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that, during the course of employment under the Respondents due to pressure of work and stress, the deceased suffered chest pain and died while returning back to Bangalore and the relationship between the said deceased and the Respondents was that of employee and employer. It is very much clear from the evidence of R.W.1 that, the Respondents have not paid the compensation to the Petitioners as required under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Before filing the present petition, the Petitioners have issued Legal Notice to the Respondents calling upon them to pay compensation of Rupees 43 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) 34,20,958/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of death till the date of realization and the legal notice was duly served on the Respondents and they have given reply to the said legal notice denying the claim of the Petitioners. From this, it appears that, before filing the present petition, the Petitioners have complied the mandatory requirements of law in claiming compensation from the Respondents in respect of the death of the deceased during the course of employment. Inspite of that, the Respondents did not care to pay the required compensation to the Petitioners in respect of the death of Sri. V. Chidu Prakash. The Respondents No.1 and 2 were aware of the employment of the deceased under them as an Associate Manager, incident and death taken place to him during the course of employment and inspite of issuance of Ex.P.1 Legal Notice dated 16.04.2014 by the Petitioner No.1 calling them to pay required compensation, they issued Ex.P.2 Reply dated 15.05.2014, which disclosed their intention not to pay the required compensation to the Petitioners and also having aware that, the Petitioners have filed the present case, they have neither deposited the required compensation within the stipulated time nor intimated the incident to the concerned Authority in accordance with law. Hence, it is just, proper and necessary to award interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said compensation amount from 05.08.2013 till the deposit of the said compensation amount. Therefore, the Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rupees 34,76,668/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, 44 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) from 05.08.2013 till payment. Hence, the Respondents being the employer of the said deceased are liable to pay the above said compensation and interest to the Petitioners. The Petitioners are entitled for the said compensation and interest from the Respondents jointly and severally. In view of the above said reasons and findings on Issues, the principles enunciated in the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners are aptly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand. On the other hand, the principles enunciated in the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
32. ISSUE NO.3 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following, ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is hereby allowed with costs.
The Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rupees 34,76,668/-
with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 05.08.2013 till the date of 45 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) payment, from the Respondents No.1 and 2.
The Respondents No.1 and 2 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within two months from the date of this Order.
The Petitioners No.1 and 2 shall share the compensation and interest in the ratio of 60:40.
In the event of deposit of compensation and interest, 50% share relating to Petitioner No.1 shall be released in her favour through account payee cheque, on proper identification.
Remaining 50% share relating to the Petitioner No.1 shall be kept in F.D in her name in any nationalized Bank of her choice, for a period of 3 years.
The entire share relating to the Petitioner No.2 shall be kept in F.D. in his name in any nationalized Bank of 46 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) the choice his guardian, till he attains the age of majority.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 1st day of March, 2017.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
P.W.1 : Sri. B.G. Geetha
P.W.2 : Sri. Ravi. P.M.
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
Ex.P.1 : Office Copy of Legal Notice dated 16.04.2014 Ex.P.2 : Reply dated 15.05.2014 Ex.P.3 : Appointment Letter dated 07.09.2006 Ex.P.4 : Letter dated 01.12.2007 Ex.P.5 : Death Certificate relating to ChiduPrakash. V. Ex.P.6 : Service Certificate dated 29.07.2013 47 ECA.NO.33/2015 (SCCH-7) Ex.P.7 : True copy of Postmortem Examination Report Ex.P.8 : True copy of Final Opinion on Postmortem Report Ex.P.9 : True copy of FIR Ex.P.10 : True copy of Complaint in Tamil Language Ex.P.10(a) : English Translation copy of Ex.P.10 Complaint Ex.P.11 : Pay Slips (2 in nos.)
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
R.W.1 : Alok Nidhi
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
Ex.R.1 : True copy of Attendance Register relating to Chidhu Prakash. V. for the Months of April 2013, May 2013 and June 2013 Ex.R.2 : True copy of E-mail address of Chidu Prakash. V. Ex.R.3 : True copy of E-mail Ex.R.4 : Authorisation Letter (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.