Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Lastly, he contended that unless there is some nexus between the death of the worker and the use of the motor vehicle, the Insurer cannot be made liable as the policy is issued under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act to cover liability incurred by the insurer in respect of death or bodily injury caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle and not a policy issued for indemnifying an employer against the claims by his workmen.

10. With regard to the first point, it is no doubt true that a claim for compensation for the death of an employee could be made under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act only if the death of that employee has occurred due to an injury sustained by accident out of and in the course of his employment. By a series of Judicial pronouncements it is now well settled that the word 'accident' should be taken to mean a mishap or untoward event, not expected or designed; that if a person suffers heart-attack and dies, it necessarily means that there has been an injury to the heart and that, that event being a mishap not expected or designed, is an accident and that, if a workman suffers heart-attack out of and in the course of his employment, then the employer is liable to pay compensation under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

12. The learned Counsel for the Insurer pointed out that the petitioner had nowhere pleaded that her husband died as a result of 'heart- attack'. While dealing with the claims for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, we should not apply the principles of pleadings strictly.

13. In the present case, though the petitioner had not specifically alleged that Lagma died of heart-attack she has given the circumstances under which Lagma happened to die on that day. The averments in the petition show that when the deceased was attending to his work he went to answer the call of nature nearby; that he suddenly fell and started vomiting; that foam was coming from his mouth and that when the deceased was taken to the hospital for treatment he died there. Though the petitioner had not specifically stated that the deceased died of heart-attack, the 2nd respondent in his objections has clearly stated that the deceased died due to heart-attack. The fact that the deceased died due to heart-attack is admitted by the employer himself.

14. Coming to the evidence of the petitioner, though the petitioner has stated in her evidence that the deceased died due to heart attack when he went to pass urine on that day, admittedly she was not present when the deceased died. The evidence of the second respondent the employer and his witness Mahendra Thammanna Guddakayi shows that on that day Lagma had gone along with other coolies to transport stones in the tractor-trailor; that after the stones had been loaded to the tractor and the vehicle was about to start to go to the place where the stones had to be unloaded the deceased got down and went to answer the call of nature at a nearby spot; that he suddenly fell unconscious and died of heart-attack. In the cross-examination of the petitioner it is elicited that Lagma used to be unwell now and then; that he used to take treatment from a private doctor and that she had learnt that he was having chest pain. It is true that no medical evidence is produced to show that the cause of death of the deceased was heart-attack. But, for that reason the other evidence on record cannot be ignored. The evidence shows that previously the deceased used to have chest pain now and then and that on that fateful day he suddenly fell down and died when he was attending to his coolie work. It may be noted that on that very day at about 1-20 P.M. a report has been given to the police by one Kallappa Guddakayi who was also working with the deceased, regarding the incident. That report is marked as Ex.P.2. Ex.P.1 is the First Information Report registered by the police on the basis of that report. In Ex.P.2 it is mentioned that the deceased went and sat near the fence to answer the call of nature and that all of a sudden he fell down and immediately they went and lifted him; that the deceased then started vomiting and was unable to talk; that they took him to hospital where within a short time he died. 'Vomiting' is one of the symptoms of heart-attack. If we lake into consideration the facts that the deceased used to get chest-pain now and then, that on that day he had gone for work and had taken part in loading stones to the tractor and that when he went and sat to answer the call of nature he suddenly fell and started vomiting and within a short time he died, it is reasonable to infer that he must have died as a result of heart-attack, as spoken to by the witness Mahendra Thammanna Guddakayi, which fact is also admitted by the 2nd respondent.

20. In Devshi Bhanji Khona's case (supra), the employee was a head-load worker and he was already suffering from heart disease. In the course of his employment the deceased died on account of heart- attack. Holding that there is a casual connection between the employment and the death in the unexpected way, the Court held that was a case of accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

21. In the present case, the deceased who was having some heart problem, was engaged in the strenuous job of loading and unloading stones. This work must necessarily have adversely affected his heart condition resulting in heart-attack. This is a reasonable inference that could be drawn from the circumstances under which the deceased suffered heart-attack. There is a nexus between his employment and the cause of his death. As such it is to be held that the death has occurred on account of his employment.