Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Sultana Begum And Ors on 27 July, 2021
Author: Nataraj Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
M.F.A. No.200056/2018 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
N.E.K.R.T.C
KALABURAGI DIVISION NO.1
KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI DEEPAK V BARAD, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. SULTANA BEGUM AND ORS
W/O LATE ABDUL QUDDUS
@ ABDUL QADEER,
AGE: ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCC: HOSUEHOLD.
2. SUMAYYA ZABEEN
D/O LATE ABDUL QUDDUS
@ ABDUL QADEER,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
3. SHAIKH ZUBER AHMED
S/O LATE ABDUL QUDDUS
@ ABDUL QADEER, AGE: 17 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT.
4. SHAIKH AZAR AHMED
S/O LATE ABDUL QUDDUS
2
@ ABDUL QADEER,
AGE: 16 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT.
RESPONDENT NO.3 & 4 ARE MINOR,
U/GUARDIANSHIP OF NATURAL MOTHER
RESPONDENT NO.1
ALL R/O PLOT NO.880/83
ISLAMABAD COLONY,
KALABURAGI-585103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SACHIN M MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4;
R3 & R4 - MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 30(1) OF EC ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE MISC. FIRST APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.07.2017 PASSED
BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION AND
THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN ECA
NO.10/2015 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by N.E.K.R.T.C. - Corporation
challenging the judgment passed by the I Additional Senior
Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employee's
Compensation at Kalaburgi (henceforth referred to as
'Tribunal', for short) in E.C.A. No.10/2015.
2. The claim petition filed before the Tribunal
discloses that the claimant No.1 is the wife; claimants No.2
to 4 are the children of Abdul Quddus Patel who was
employed as a driver with the appellant. On 03.12.2014
when he was discharging his duties on Kalaburgi-
Hyderabad route, he suffered severe chest pain and the
Doctors of Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad declared
him dead. The claimants contended that the appellant -
Corporation had deputed the deceased on various trips
without giving rest, due to which he suffered stress and
strain which resulted in cardiac arrest. The claimants
claimed that the deceased was aged 45 years and was
earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- p.m., apart from other
incentives. They alleged that death was during the course
of employment. Hence, they filed a claim petition claiming
compensation of a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- from the
appellant - Corporation. The appellant - Corporation
contested the claim petition by filing its objections. The
appellant denied that the deceased died due to cardiac
failure and that he suffered stress and strain due to the
work entrusted to him. It claimed that deceased was 47
years and was earning Rs.25,000/-p.m. The claimant No.1
was examined as P.W.1 and she marked Exs.P-1 to 5,
while the appellant - Corporation examined its Manager as
R.W.1, but did not mark any document.
3. Based on the oral and documentary evidence
and the admitted fact that the deceased was employed as
driver and having regard to the fact that the deceased
suffered heart attack when he was on duty, the Tribunal
held that the death was during the course of his
employment. The Tribunal having regard to the limit
prescribed under Section 4 of the Employee's
Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth referred to as 'Act',
for short) determined the compensation taking the wages
at Rs.8,000/- p.m. and applying the relevant factor
awarded a sum of Rs.6,52,300/- and directed claim of
interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the incident till its
realisation.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of
the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed.
5. The learned counsel for the Corporation
contended that the cause of death is not specifically
proved. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SHAKUNTALA CHANDRAKANT
SHRESHTI VS PRABHAKAR MARUTI GARVALI &
ANOTHER reported in (2007) 11 SCC 668 and
contended that unless evidence is brought on record to
establish that the cardiac arrest was due to stress and
strain of the work, the Tribunal could not have awarded
damages.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
claimants contended that the appellant - Corporation did
not produce any material to deny the claim of the
claimants that the deceased was deputed on multiple trips
without rest. He also contended that this Court in similar
circumstances has held in M.F.A. No. 201567/2017 that
heart attack is a personal injury arising out and in the
course of employment, and therefore, satisfies the
requirement of Section 3(1) of the Act.
7. The claimants specifically claimed that the
deceased was deputed on multiple trips without rest and
that as a result he suffered stress and strain of work which
resulted in a cardiac arrest. In order to rebut this claim,
the appellant Corporation which was in custody of the
records relating to the trips undertaken by the deceased,
must have produced the same before the Tribunal. Since
the deceased suffered cardiac arrest when he was driving
the vehicle belonging to the appellant corporation, there
was not even an iota of doubt that at the relevant time, he
was in the course of employment. The non-production of
the relevant documents by the Corporation should result in
drawing an adverse inference against him. The deceased
was aged hardly 47 years and having regard to the nature
of work of a driver, it goes without saying that he was
under constant stress. The Employee's Compensation Act
being a welfare legislation cannot be interpreted in
vacuum, but has to be interpreted taking into
consideration the real life situations. In that view of the
matter and in view of the judgment of Division Bench of
this court, there is no error in the appreciation of evidence
by the Tribunal. Consequently, this appeal lacks merit and
is dismissed.
8. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to
the Tribunal for passing appropriate orders.
Sd/-
JUDGE
hnm
