Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The Respondents made a claim before the Commissioner under Section 3 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') seeking compensation from the Appellant on the ground that the workman had died in an accident that has occurred in the course of employment under the Appellant. According to the respondents, while the workman was working at Chittapur under the appellant as a Conductor in the vehicle belonging to the appellant on 19th January 2001 while he was plying on the route Tuljapur to Chittapur, he developed chest pain; and when the same was informed to the driver of the bus, the driver stopped the bus at Naladurg Bus stand and admitted him to the Ashwini Nursing Home which is close to Naladurg Bus stand and he died in the hospital on account of heart- attack. It is the case of the respondents that on the date of death the workman was 35 years of age and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 4,731/- (Rupees four thousand seven hundred thirty one) and all the respondents were entirely depending upon his income for their livelihood. However, the appellant resisted the claim of the respondents inter alia contending that the workman did not die on account of the personal injury caused to him in an accident that had arisen out of and in the course of the employment. According to the stand taken by the appellant, the death on account of heart attack taking place in the course of the employment cannot be treated as an accident that takes place in the course of employment to attract Section 3 of the Act. However, the Commissioner on the basis of the materials on record, has found that the workman died on account of heart attack, which he suffered in the course of his employment as a conductor of the vehicle belonging to the Appellant.

3. Smt. Renuka, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, challenging the correctness of the impugned order submitted that the Commissioner has erred in law taking the view that heart attack suffered by the workman while working as conductor in the vehicle belonging to the appellant can be construed as an injury suffered by him in an accident arising out or and in course of his employment. According to the learned Counsel, the Appellant will be liable to pay compensation if the workman had suffered any personal injury on account of any accident that has arisen in the course of his employment and the heart attack being a natural event that has taken place on account of physical unfitness or ailment of the workman, the death taking place on account of heart-attack cannot be treated as an accident. She further pointed out that there is no injury caused to the workman on account of any accident that has taken place in the course of his employment.

"Section 3(1): If the 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 provisions of this Chapter."

From the reading of Section 3(1) of the Act what would emerge is that an employer is liable to pay compensation, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, to a workman if such workman suffers personal injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Therefore the question is, what should be the meaning attached or given to the words "personal injury caused to a workman by accident"? According to the chambers' 20th Century Dictionary 'injury' means damage, hurt, impairment, annoyance. Therefore, in our considered view the development of just pain or for that matter any other pain, would be an injury caused to the person. However, to make an employer liable to pay compensation for such an injury suffered by the workman, such an injury must have been caused to the workman on account of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Therefore, if on account of chest pain or heart - attack, if an workman dies, the question would be whether such an event can be construed as an accident? If such an event can be construed as an accident, the employer would be liable to pay the compensation to the legal representatives of the workman under the Act. No doubt, as noticed by us earlier, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the development of chest pain or heart attack is a natural event which every human being would be prone to and merely because a workman like the conductor in a bus suffers chest pain or heart attack in the course of employment cannot be construed as an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. We are unable to accede to the said contention. The reasons are more than one. Firstly, we will have to keep in mind the context under which the word "accident" is employed in Section 3(1) of the Act. There cannot be any dispute that the Act is a beneficial legislation intended to protect the interest of the workman who generally belong to the less fortunate section of the society. Section 3 of the Act provides for payment of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act, if any personal injury is caused to a workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment The object of Section 3(1) of the Act is to ensure financial assistance and to relieve the workman and his family members of the hardship they may suffer on account of a personal injury that may be caused to a workman in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. It is well settled that while interpreting the beneficial legislation, in the absence of the language employed in the legislation being clear and unambiguous and does not give scope for views more than one, the courts will have to interpret the legislation or the provisions of the legislation keeping in mind the object and purpose of legislation. If it is so understood, it is not possible to give a restricted meaning to the word accident' under Section 3(1) of the Act so as to exclude the death of a workman in the course of employment on account of heart attack. The word 'accident' in the context in which it is employed has to be given a very wide and liberal meaning to make Section 3 of the Act purposeful and meaningful, so that, the object of the legislation is achieved. If it is so done, the word 'accident' can be understood in the context as an event or incident taking place unexpectedly or suddenly. In fact, this view of ours gets support from the meaning given to the word 'accident' in Chambers' 21st Century Dictionary wherein the meaning of the word 'accident' has been stated as:

"an unexpected event which causes damage or harm; something which happens without planning or intention; chance managed it by accident."

8. Therefore, if a workman suffers a personal injury unexpectedly or suddenly and such personal injury suffered by the workman can be attributed to the work undertaken by the workman or has some connection to the nature of the duties discharged by a workman, such an injury suffered can be treated as a result of the accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. In the instant case, the evidence on record shows that the workman was working at Chittapur depot of the appellant and he had boarded the bus in the early hours of the day to carryout his duties as Conductor. It is on record that after the bus proceeded around 40 kilometers, the workman developed chest pain and when the same was informed to the driver of the bus, the driver stopped the bus at Naladurg Bus stand and admitted the workman to Ashwini Hospital. Among several causes for chest pain, one of the causes is strain and stress of work. Under these circumstances, the nature of work one undertakes, whether it be carrying a load on head, or driving a vehicle or working as a conductor or carrying out more strenuous work, where physical exercise is involved, have strain and stress of the work on the individual. Further, for development of chest pain or heart attack, physical exercise or physical strain alone is not the cause; and even the mental strain also could be a cause for chest pain or advancing the heart-attack Therefore, even assuming that the workman had the block of the arteries of his heart, the free flow of blood to the heart could be affected on account of the strain of work. Therefore, since admittedly, the workman at the time when he developed chest pain was conducting the bus as its conductor, it is reasonable to infer that he died on account of personal injury suffered by him in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. We would also like to point out that taking a view, different from the one we have expressed above, would be defeating the very object of the legislation. As noticed by us earlier, the Act is a beneficial legislation intended to give some security to the workman. We are of the considered view that the provisions of the Act is in the nature of a 'Mini Insurance Scheme' to the workmen. Therefore, the liability of the employer under the Act is conceptually quite different from the liability under tort. Therefore, the interpretation to the provisions of the Act calls for a broad and liberal construction, lest its evident object is defeated. It is necessary to point out that while death is a natural event of life, the cause like heart attack or any other ailment cannot be considered as natural event that would take place, as contended by learned Counsel for the Appellant. The strain of the work may be mental or physical; depending upon the nature of the work one takes up and the physical and mental condition of an individual, a person may suffer heart - attack. Heart -attack suffered, sometimes, if immediate and proper medical care is provided, may save the life of the patient. In this case the workman was on duty and was admitted to an moffisil hospital. It is not the case of the appellant that the best medical treatment was made available to the workman when he complained of chest - pain.