The National Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt.Mutcharla Satyavathi 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4677 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                      C.M.A. No.211 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:

The respondents No.1, 2 and 3 herein filed the claim petition

in W.C. No.6 of 2008 before the Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada

(for short "Commissioner"), seeking compensation on the death of

the deceased Mutcharla Siva Kumar, who was the driver of the

Lorry bearing No.AP16 TU 3404 and died while he was driving lorry

from Rajahmundry to Jaipur, Rajastan State with a load of paper

on 11.12.2006, on the ground that they were the dependents on

the deceased and they lost their bread winner.

2. The opposite party No.1 who is the employer admitted in his

counter affidavit that the deceased died due to heart attack during

the course of employment and he was drawing an amount of

Rs.4,500/- towards salary.

3. The opposite party No.2 who was appellant insurance

company filed counter affidavit denying all the material allegations

made in the application inter alia has taken defense that the

deceased driver was not died due to stress and strain during the

course of the employment and the death does not come under the

accidental death. Hence, the opposite party No.2 is not liable to

indemnify the opposite No.1.

4. On behalf of the applicants who are respondents 1, 2 and 3

herein have examined two witnesses and marked Exs.A1 to A16.

Applicant witness-1 has denied all the suggestions which were put

by opposite party No.2 and categorically stated that her husband

died due to stress and strain out of employment.

5. All the documents were considered by the Commissioner and

awarded compensation observing that the deceased died due to the

heart attack during the course of employment and the death of the

deceased comes under the purview of the accident and held that

the applicants are entitled for compensation relying on the

judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in

the case "Depot Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar Vs. G. Anjamma"1,

wherein it was held that a death caused by chest pain while the

deceased was on duty, the death occurred shall be construed

during the course of employment.

6. Similarly, the Commissioner has also relied on another

judgment in "Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Kasturi Devi

& Others" 2 , wherein it was held that driving the long distance,

especially in the night hours, would cause stress and strain to the

employee. After considering the material on record the

Commissioner held that, the deceased died due to the accident

that occurred during the course of the employment and awarded

an amount of Rs.3,33,246/- as compensation.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal came to be

filed by the insurance company. The counsel for the appellant-

insurance company has re-iterated the grounds raised in the

counter affidavit filed in W.C. case and stated that the death of the

deceased was not due to stress and strain and he died due to heart

attack and that it does not come under the purview of the accident

arising out of and in the course of employment as required under

Sections 2 (1) (n) and 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act,

2001 ACJ 1885

2007 ACJ 2796

1923. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order

dated 28.02.2009 passed by the Commissioner.

8. Per contra the respondents submitted that on referring the

order of the Commissioner, where the Commissioner stated that

the police conducted Panchanama on the dead body on 11.12.2006

and the Assistant Surgeon, M.O.C.H.C., Bandawar conducted post

mortem on the dead body of the deceased and the Doctor stated

that the deceased died due to heart attack that occurred during

the course of employment on 11.12.2006. The evidence

categorically shows that the deceased was died due to heart attack.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents also relied on

another Judgment in "Divisional Controller N E K R T C, Sarige

Sadan Station Road, Gulbarga represented by Chief Law Officer Vs.

Kiran W/o. Vijayakumar; Sheetal D/o Vijaykumar; Varsha D/o.

Vijaykumar; Vishal S/o. Vijaykumar" 3 , wherein the Karnataka

High Court, Kalaburagi Bench held that when a person is driving a

vehicle, by a truck or bicycle certain amount of stress or strain

would be always there on him and the Court held that heart attack

during the course of driving of the vehicle which is an accident and

it is personal injury arising out of and during the course of

employment in accordance with Section 3 (1) of the Workmen's

Compensation Act, 1923.

10. The research show that the lengthy car commuting

perpetuates conditions that compromise individual's health, which

includes stress caused by traffic congestion, searching for parking,

interacting with other drivers and safety concerns, phenomenon

characterized as (travel impedance). Those who spent more time

2020 LawSuit(Kar) 1619

driving were more likely to report the obesity, fair/poor quality of

life, high/very high psychological distress, time stress, and having

physical health or emotional problems that interfered with social

functioning. The study indicates that more than two hours of

driving per day is particularly detrimental to the health of middle-

aged and older adults, which alleviated risk of cardiovascular

disease (CVD) mortality. Driving is a potential risk factor for a

cluster of health behaviours. In view of the above, driving of a

vehicle for a long distance exertion is, which leads to stress and

strain and any death caused shall be construed as an accident

under Sub-clause 4 of Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation

Act, 1923.

11. In the present case, the deceased started his driving from

Rajahmundry and when he reached Nagada died during the course

of treatment, which comes under the jurisdiction of Madhya

Pradesh State. He drove more than a considerable distance as

such he suffered stress and strain and died due to the accident,

which comes under the purview of Section 3(1) of the Act.

12. The Order of the Commissioner does not suffer from any

irregularity or illegality. The issue raised by the appellant was dealt

with by the Commissioner and found against the insurance

company, who is appellant herein. As the order of the

Commissioner does not suffer from any irregularity, I found no

reasons to meddle with the order as no substantial question of law

is involved and the ground raised does not come under the purview

of Section 30 as contemplated under the Act.

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

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stands closed.

_______________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: -07-2022 Harin

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

C.M.A. No. 211 of 2010 Date: -07-2022

Harin

10. The law is essentially discovered not made. Law is systemic

discovery process involving the historical experiences of successive

generations. Law reflects and embodies the experiences of all man

who have never lived.