Compensation And Assistant ... vs Prabhakar
2022 Latest Caselaw 4295 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO


                       C.M.A.No.864 of 2008

JUDGMENT:-

       Heard both sides.


2.     The present Appeal arises out of the Order dated 16.09.2006

in W.C.No.29 of 2004 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-1, Guntur


3.     The respondent nos.1 to 5 herein, who are the applicants-

claimants before the Commissioner's Workmen filed the above

W.C. Case claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four

lakhs only) towards the death of the deceased. The deceased

worked as a Driver under opposite no.1 in the School Van bearing

no. AP 7X 268 and the deceased died during the course of the

employment on 14.10.2003.

4. On serving notices both the opposite party nos.1 & 2 filed

their respective counter affidavits.

5. The opposite party no. 1 admitted the employment of the

deceased as the Driver of the School Van. The opposite party no. 2

filed his counter affidavit denying most of the submissions made

in the claim application filed by the applicants-claimants. The

opposite party no. 2-Insurance Company filed its counter affidavit

therein denying the fact that the deceased has died during the

course of the employment under the opposite party no. 1. Hence,

the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and

prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. On adverting the facts stated by the opposite party nos.1

and 2, the Commissioner has framed three (3) issues. Out of

them, the issue which is relevant for the disposal of this Appeal is

hereby extracted:-

1) Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and he died due to personal injuries he received in an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment ?

7. On behalf of the applicants-claimants two witnesses were

examined. One such witness is AW2-Doctor. As per the pleadings

of the opposite parties, it is not the case of the Insurance

Company that the deceased has not died due to injuries. The

Doctor, who was examined as AW2 has categorically stated that

the deceased died due to heart failure. The deceased fell down on

the steering and the bus was stopped at Anandapet in Guntur

City. As such, the Commissioner after considering the evidence

has observed that the deceased died during the course of

employment and awarded an amount of Rs.3,03,509/- besides

stamp duty of Rs.608/- totaling of Rs.3,04,117/- considering the

G.O.Ms.No.81 dated 02.12.2000 for assessment of the wage of the

deceased.

8. The Insurance Company has preferred the Appeal before this

Court, on the ground that the deceased has not died due to

accident and he died due to heart failure as there is no evidence to

show that the deceased died due to stress and strain of the work.

The Insurance Company relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in, "Shakuntala chandrakanth sreshti Vs Prabhakar

Maruti Garvali and another1" wherein, it is held that medical

opinion therefore would be of relevance to arrive at a conclusion

whether any person died due to accident.

9. The Commissioner's Workmen found that the deceased died

due to heart failure relying on the evidence of the Doctor in the

post mortem report. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that

the petitioner was the driver of the School Van and died in the bus

while driving the bus. This is undoubtedly a strenuous job as the

workman who had no history of any previous cardiac disease

suddenly developed chest pain and died in the bus itself. When

there is no indication about previous disease and any sudden

death caused shall be treated as stress and strain. In the present

case, there is no evidence to show that the deceased has suffered

any ill health prior to the accident. As such, the death shall be

treated to have occurred during the course of employment. Hence,

the legal heirs are entitled to compensation.

10. The Workmen's Compensation Act is a beneficial legislation

and the Court cannot dwell into the issues in deep to award

compensation. Hence, the finding recorded by the Commissioner

that the deceased died due to heart attack is purely a finding of

fact based on the material on record and it is not on the basis of

surmises and conjectures. When a finding is recorded by the

Commissioner's Workmen as regards the nature of work and as to

whether the deceased has suffered heart attack arising out of and

during the course of the employment, such findings are not open

MANU/SC/8649/2006

to challenge unless perversity is apparent on the face of the record

and an Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation

Act itself is not maintainable in the present case. It is not the case

of the Insurance Company, in its counter affidavit that the

deceased has not died due to accident and it is the only main

contention of the Insurance Company that the deceased was not

an employee of the opposite party no. 1.

11. As the Workmen's Compensation Act, is a beneficial

legislation, it should be given liberal interpretation and in the

present case, the standard of evidence as applied in criminal cases

should not be applied. Its provisions must be interpreted in the

way that its objectives are achieved. The evidence is on the basis

of preponderance of probabilities as in the case of civil cases after

analyzing the evidence and law on the strong circumstances of the

case.

12. Therefore, I cannot take a contrary view of the Order

16.09.2006 passed by the Commissioner's Workmen and the

Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is

not applicable to the present facts of the case as the deceased has

not suffered any cardiac problems prior to the accident and there

is no such evidence on record. In view of the facts and

circumstances of the case the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable

to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No

costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 19-07-2022 EPS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

C.M.A.No.864 of 2008

Date: 19-07-2022

EPS