Karnataka High Court

Smt.Rathnamma vs Chief Executive Engineer on 9 June, 2021

Author: H.P.Sandesh

                            1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

                 M.F.A.NO.5713/2013 (WC)
BETWEEN:

1.   SMT.RATHNAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
     W/O LATE DURGAPPA

2.   SRI MANJUNATH
     AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
     S/O LATE DURGAPPA

3.   SRI D. NAGARAJA
     AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
     S/O LATE DURGAPPA

4.   SRI D. JYOTHI
     AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
     D/O LATE DURGAPPA

5.   SRI D. PAVAN KUMAR
     AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
     S/O LATE DURGAPPA

6.   SRI D. PRAVEEN KUMAR
     AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
     S/O LATE DURGAPPA

     ALL ARE RESIDING AT
     J.C.R. EXTENSION, JAGALUR
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001.
                                           ... APPELLANTS
              (BY SRI S.RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR
             SRI S.B.MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
                                  2



AND:

1.     CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       (ELECTRICAL BESCOM
       SUB-DIVISION OFFICE)
       HADADI ROAD
       DAVANAGERE-577 001.

2.     ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       BESCOM (O & M)
       SUB-DIVISILON OFFICE, JAGALUR
       DAVANAGERE-577 001.
                                               ... RESPONDENTS

            (BY SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)


     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN
COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED
25.02.2013 PASSED IN WCA-KAD/KNP/CR-45/2010 ON THE FILE
OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN
COMPENSATION,     DAVANAGERE     DISTRICT,  DAVANAGERE,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH
'VIDEO CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

Though this appeal is listed for admission today, with the

consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the

same is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants

challenging the Judgment and Award dated 25.02.2013 passed

in Dispute No.WCA/KAD/KNP/CR-45/2010 on the file of the

Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation,

Davanagere District, Davanagere, ('the Commissioner' for short).

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased

was working as lineman in the respondent-Electrical BESCOM,

Sub-Division Office and during the course of his employment, he

had sustained injuries on 23.08.2005 and subsequently he took

prolonged treatment and ultimately he passed away in the year

2008. After the death, the claimants, who are the legal heirs,

have approached the Commissioner for compensation. The

Commissioner vide order dated 25.02.2013 dismissed the claim

petition answering issue No.1 that the claimants have not proved

the fact that the death was due to the injuries he has sustained

in the incident and the post-mortem report discloses that the

death is on account of 'massive myocardial infarction'. Being

aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, the present

appeal is filed and the substantial questions of law were raised

before this Court are that:

(1) Whether the Employee's Compensation Authority is

justified in holding that the death of an employee is not on

account of the employment injury sustained while he was

on duty on 23-08-2005?

(2) Whether the Employee's Compensation Authority is

justified in holding that the death of an employee is on

account of 'due to massive myocardial infarction' despite

the opinion of the doctor that the death of an employee

was on account of the mental stress?

4. The learned counsel for the appellants would

vehemently contend that in spite of the admission of RW.1 in his

evidence that he had sustained the injuries during the course of

the employment and thereafter he took the prolonged treatment

and the Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.2 also

categorically deposed that on account of the nature of injuries

sustained and also due to the mental stress, he died. The

Tribunal failed to consider the same.

5. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this

Court, particularly, the Commissioner though discussed while

answering issue No.1, the evidence of R.W.1, but while

answering issue No.1 contrary to the discussion, answered issue

No.1 as 'negative'. Hence, it requires an interference of this

Court.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent would vehemently contend that the Commissioner in

detail discussed while answering issue No.1 and rightly comes to

the conclusion that the death was not on account of accidental

injuries and the cause of death is related to the injury which he

has sustained not in respect of the employment and the Doctor

evidence is also clear that 'due to massive myocardial infarction',

he lost his life.

7. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel

appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for

the second respondent and on perusal of the grounds urged in

the appeal and the materials available on record, the substantial

questions that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

(i) Whether the Employee's compensation authority is justified in holding that the death of an employee is not on account of the employment injury sustained while he was on duty on 23.08.2005?

(ii) Whether Employee's compensation authority is justified in coming to the conclusion that the death of an employee is not on account of mental stress and the same same was on account of 'due to massive myocardial infarction'?

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):

8. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal

of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the

deceased, who was working as lineman with the respondent met

with an accident on 23.08.2005. R.W.1 in the cross-examination

categorically admitted that he has sustained the injuries during

the course of his employment while attending his work. Also it is

an admitted fact the respondents have met the medical

expenses and even paid the advance for his treatment and also

the documents clearly discloses that he was on leave from 2005

to 2007 and the document-Ex.R2 clearly discloses that they have

considered the leave on account of the accidental injuries

sustained i.e., from 23.08.2005 to 20.11.2005 for a period of 90

days and from 21.11.2005 to 18.07.2006 for a period of 180

days and again from 19.07.2006 to 18.07.2007 for a period of

365 days and he was in continuous leave on account of the

accidental injuries and ultimately he was succumbed to the

injuries in the year 2008. The Doctor, who has been examined

as P.W.2, in his evidence, he categorically deposes the cause of

death. When he was cross-examined, a suggestion was made

that prior to death, he was not treated him and also suggestion

was made that the cause of death given by him was true but in

his evidence he categorically deposes that he conducted the

post-mortem report and the cause of death is mental stress. As

a result, he suffered the heart attack. When such being the

evidence of P.W.2, the Commissioner has committed an error in

coming to the conclusion that the death is not on account of an

injury and the mental stress and given erroneous findings

against the material on record. Hence, it requires an

interference of this Court to come to a conclusion that the death

is on account of the accidental injuries occurred on 23.08.2005

and he was in continuous treatment even though it was 'due to

massive myocardial infarction'. The medical evidence is clear

that it was on account of mental stress, resulted in 'massive

myocardial infarction' and the Tribunal has committed an error in

coming to such a conclusion by answering issue No.1.

9. Now, this Court has to take note of the material on

record though the Workmen Commissioner has not assessed the

compensation, no need to remand the matter and the same has

to be calculated based on the age of the deceased and also the

relevant factor and also considering the salary certificate, which

is already marked as Ex.P6 and the same is not disputed, which

discloses his salary was Rs.13,039/- and considering the

relevant factor i.e., 169.44 taking into his age and according to

the enactment 50% has to be deducted and after deducting it

comes to Rs.6,520/- and applying the relevant factor, it comes

to Rs.11,04,749/-. Hence, the claimants are entitled for the said

amount with interest at 12% per annum from the date of one

month of the death.

10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed.

(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 25.02.2013 passed in Dispute No.WCA/KAD/KNP/CR-

45/2010 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen

Compensation, Davanagere District, Davanagere, is hereby set-aside.

(iii) Consequently, the appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.11,04,749/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of one month of his death.