Pusa Rajamma And Another vs Chief Engineer, K.T.P.S., Polancha on 25 August, 1999
8, In similar circumstances, the Orissa High Court, also had an occasion to interpret Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act in a decision Swarnalatha Samal and Others v. Choudhury Kanduri Charan Das, . The widow of Rasananda Samal, claimed that on 27-7-1987 her husband, who was under employment of the respondent, Bajrang Stone crushing Plant at Chadheidhara, suffered from reeling of head and fell down senseless, he was removed from the site to Jaipur Road Hospital and therefrom to SCB Medical College Hospital, where in the night of 28-7-1987, he expired. Therefore, his wife filed claim petition and the learned Commissioner on discussion of the evidence on record, held that the deceased did not die of an accident and since the evidence on record proved that he died of hypertension, this could not be said to be an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. While deciding the issue whether the death of the deceased was in the course of his employment, the learned Commissioner based on the evidence of PW2 and death certificate, and observed that the nature of
work of a supervisor does not warrant any risk of the attack of hypertension. There is absolutely no nexus between the blood pressure and nature of work the deceased was performing. Hypertension of the workers in stone crushing plant is also not an occupational disease as mentioned under Schedule III of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Besides, it could not be proved at all that there was an accident of the deceased for which there was a brain haemorrhage and he expired. Hence, had there been a real accident, the real applicants must have filed this claim application before 8-6-1989 or within the time limit and not after two months of the money suit filed by opposite party against the son of the deceased.