Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Challenging the order of Deputy Commissioner of Labour Commissioner awarding compensation of Rs. 1,66,290/- for the death of deceased Nagammal, Insurance Company has preferred this appeal denying its liability.

2. First respondent's wife Nagammal was working as an employee under the second respondent at Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. and the employees are covered under Insurance Scheme. On 06.09.2000, at about 9.45 a.m., she suffered severe heart attack and she was taken to the hospital by ambulance but she passed away on the way to the hospital. Alleging that the death occurred in the course of employment, first respondent and their son and daughter have filed Petition under Section 10, Workmen's Compensation Act claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Denying any accident at work place, causing injuries to the deceased, management has opposed the claim stating that death was due to heart attack and not due to any accident in the course of employment and while at work. Insurance Company also resisted the claim contending that deceased died due to heart attack and medical records show that she died due to myocordial infraction and that she was suffering from heart disease for several years. As the death was not in course of employment, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation.

5. In the light of the above legal proposition, it is to be considered whether death of Nagammal arose out of and in course of her employment under appellant management.

6. Admittedly, Nagammal was working as employee from 1976 in Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. It is equally not in dispute that on 06.09.2000 at about 9.45 a.m., Nagammal suffered heart attack and while she was taken in Ambulance to hospital, she died on the way to hospital. According to the appellant, claimants are not eligible to receive any compensation, since death was due to heart attack and not due to any accident in the course of employment and while at work.

10. In the Sakuntala Chandrakanth case, the cleaner of the vehicle died due to massive heart attack. In the said case before the Supreme Court, nothing has been brought on record to show that heart attack was caused while doing any job. Even according to the employer, the deceased at the relevant point of time was merely getting down from the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle, who was brother of the deceased was the best evidence to speak as to under what circumstances death was caused or death occurred. Driver of the vehicle did not examine himself. Doctor who performed the postmortem was also not examined. Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court has observed that there must be some evidence that the employment contributed to the death of the deceased and it is required to be establish that the death occurred during the course of employment. In the said case, since evidence was found to be lacking and best witness was not examined, Supreme Court has held as follows:

17. In Kerala, after analyzing the facts, Division Bench of Kerala High Court has held that it would be reasonable to conclude that the strain, even if it was a normal strain, connected with the employment was the reason for the death of the worker. It is further said that even proceeding on the basis that the worker was suffering from chest ailment and was prone to heart attack, the circumstances in the case would clearly indicate that the strain due to the work he was doing was the cause which accelerated his death due to heart attack.