Karnataka High Court
Mallawwa W/O Gurushantappa ... vs Shivanand S/O Gangadarappa ... on 25 June, 2021
Author: P.Krishna Bhat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO. 102574/2015 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MALLAWWA
W/O. GURUSHANTAPPA BADANATTI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
2. KUMARI VASANTI
D/O. GURUSHANTAPPA BADANATTI,
AGE: 7 YEARS, OCC: NIL
3. KUMARI SANJANA
D/O. GURUSHANTAPPA BADANATTI,
AGE: 4 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN
i.e. THEIR MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1.
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF NAREGAL,
TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK MAGANUR, ADV.,)
AND:
1. MR. SHIVANAND S/O. GANGADHARAPPA THAMBE,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING
NO.KA-25/C-5960,
R/O. 17:B, HORAKERI GALLI,
CHANNAPETA OLD HUBLI,
2
TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
2. L & T GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE L & T HOUSE, N.M. MARG,
BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI - 400001
ISSUED BRANCH BENGALURU,
PREMIUM PAID THROUGH L & T FINANCE, HUBLI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. K. KAYAKMATH, ADV., FOR R2
SMT. GIRIJA S HIREMATH, ADV.FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEE'S
COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
04.07.2015 PASSED IN ECA NO.9/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, RON, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 30(1)
of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short "the Act")
calling in question the legality of the order dated 04.07.2015
passed in ECA No. 9/2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and
Additional M.A.C.T., Ron (for short "the Trial Court").
2. Brief facts are that one Gurushantappa Badanatti,
the husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimants 2 and 3
and son of claimant No.4, was working as a driver in lorry
bearing registration No.KA-25/C-5960 owned by respondent
No.1-Shivanand and insured with respondent No.2. It is stated
that on 16.07.2011, while he was driving the lorry near Nice
Road, Bangalore as per the instructions of respondent No.1, he
suffered heart attack in the lorry itself and he died.
3. During the claim proceedings, respondent No.1-
insured filed his written statement admitting the relationship of
employer-employee between him and the deceased. Respondent
No.2 also filed its separate written statement.
4. Learned Trial Court has answered the question
regarding relationship of employer-employee as between
respondent No.1 and the deceased in favour of the claimants.
However, learned Trial Court has dismissed the claim petition on
the ground that the death of the deceased driver due to heart
attack cannot be held as an accident taking place in the course
of and arising out of the employment.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants
strenuously contended before me that the learned Trial Court
has committed a serious error of law in dismissing the claim
petition on the ground that the death of the deceased due to
heart attack while on duty cannot be said to be in the course of
and arising out of the employment. He, in this behalf, submitted
that the learned Trial Court has not taken note of various
decisions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
coming to such a finding and therefore, it is liable to be set
aside.
6. I have also heard the learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased
had died while he was driving the lorry of respondent No.1,
which is insured with respondent No.2 near Bangalore due to
heart attack. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants is that the heart attack had taken place on account of
the work related stress or at any rate the risk of suffering heart
attack due to a pre-existing condition was enhanced on account
of his stressful work as a driver of a heavy vehicle like lorry. In
this behalf, it is necessary to make reference to the observation
of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2021 (2) Kar.L.J.
336 (DB) (The Divisional Controller NEKRTC Gulbarga vs.
Smt. Kiran and others). It was observed as follows:
31. Therefore, in view of the above
discussions and in the light of the principles
stated in the above referred decisions, if the
petitioners-claimants contentions is considered
then it can be safely concluded that deceased-
Vijayakumar suffered "heart attack" which is
"accident" and it is "personal injury" caused to
him "arising out of" and "during the course of
employment". The ingredients of Section 3(1) of
the Act, 1923, are fully complied by the
respondents-claimants. The appellant has failed
to show any grounds for interference by this
Court. Keeping in mind the object and reasons for
enacting the Workmen's Compensation Act, which
is a social welfare legislation meant for welfare of
employer and employees, if the principles placed
before the Court, in the light of the well
established principles regarding appreciation of
evidence in such cases, then it is evident that the
appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be
dismissed. Hence, the substantial question of law
is answered in Affirmative."
8. In this case also, the death of deceased
Gurushantappa has taken place due to heart attack while he was
driving the lorry of respondent No.1 insured with respondent
No.2. In view of the above decision of this Court, the finding
recorded by the learned Court below is plainly illegal and is liable
to be set aside. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The above appeal is allowed.
The order of the learned Trial Court passed in
ECA No. 9/2014 dated 04.07.2015 is set aside and
the case is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh
consideration of the matter in accordance with law.
In view of disposal of the appeal,
pending interlocutory applications, if any, do
not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
yan
