Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt.Raju And Ors vs Champa Lal And Anr on 27 February, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:3060]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1472/2013
1.Smt.Raju W/o Late Sh. Shobha Lal Dangi, Aged about 47 years
2.Yashwant S/o Late Sh. Shobha Lal Dangi, Aged about 20 years
3.Bheru Lal S/o Late Shobha Lal Dangi, Aged about 21 years
4.Smt. Kani Bai W/o Sh. Kamal Dangi, Aged about 70 years
All are resident of Gopalpura, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District
Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Champa Lal S/o Sh. Nand Lal Dangi, Resident of Gopalpura,
Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur.
2. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited
through Divisional Branch Manager, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Aditi Moad for
Mr. Deelip Kawadia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ayush Goyal & Mr. Bhavyadeep
Singh for Mr. Vinay Kothari
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Judgment
27/02/2025
1. The present misc. appeal has been filed against the
judgment dated 13.08.2012 passed by the Workmen
Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as
'the learned Commissioner') in Claim Case No.W.C./F.(D.)-71/2008
whereby the claim petition as preferred by the claimants stood
rejected.
2. The learned Commissioner while deciding Issue No.1,
observed that the claimants failed to prove on record any
connection between the nature of employment and death and
[2025:RJ-JD:3060] (2 of 10) [CMA-1472/2013]
further that the death did not occur in the course of the
employment.
3. The facts are that a claim petition was filed by the claimants
with the pleading that Shobha Lal Dangi, the deceased was
engaged as a driver on a truck owned by respondent No.1. On
29.05.2008, Shobha Lal was en-route from Andhra Pradesh to
Ahmedabad, transporting scrap material. Upon reaching Vallan
village on National Highway No.8, he got down from the truck and
while pulling a rope, fell down on his chest because of the rope
breaking down, which resulted into his death on the spot.
4. It was further averred in the petition that Shobha Lal expired
because of an accident during the course of employment with
respondent No.1 and hence the claimants are entitled for
compensation in terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1923'). The vehicle in
question being insured with respondent No.2 Insurance Company,
both the respondents were liable to pay the compensation and the
penalty amount in terms of the Act of 1923.
5. As observed in the preceding para, the learned
Commissioner rejected the claim petition while recording a finding
that the deceased died due to a cardiac arrest which was evident
from the FIR as lodged qua the incident in question and the fact
as pleaded by the claimants of his death to have occurred while
pulling a rope is incorrect. The learned Commissioner further
observed that it is with an intent to conceal the said fact of
deceased having expired because of a cardiac arrest that the
Medical Examination Report was not got exhibited by the
claimants. Finding a variance in pleadings and proof, the learned
[2025:RJ-JD:3060] (3 of 10) [CMA-1472/2013]
Commissioner found the death of the deceased not to have
occurred during the course of employment and hence, rejected the
claim petition.
It is relevant to note here that as Issue No.1 was decided
against the claimants, the learned Commissioner did not proceed
to decide the other issues.
6. Ms. Aditi Moad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submitted that the learned Commissioner erroneously recorded
the above findings whereas Yusuf Khan (A.W.2), the eye witness
to the accident, being a Khalasi on the truck at that point of time,
specifically deposed that Shobha Lal was pulling a rope which
broke, due to which he fell down on his chest and collapsed on the
spot. The said evidence of the eye witness stood uncontroverted
and hence, there was no reason to discard or disbelieve the same.
7. Learned counsel, in the alternate submitted that even if the
finding as recorded by the learned Commissioner is taken to be
factually correct, merely because the deceased died of a cardiac
arrest, it cannot be concluded that the said was not in the course
of employment. Even if it is assumed that the deceased died of a
cardiac arrest, it was proved on record that the same was because
of stress and strain of driving continuously for a long period. While
relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of C. Manjamma & Anr. Vs. The Divisional Manager, The
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.; (2022) 6 SCC 206 learned
counsel submitted that the demise of the deceased was attributed
to his job of driving and admittedly he died while on duty.
8. Per contra Mr. Ayush Goyal, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 Insurance Company while supporting the
[2025:RJ-JD:3060] (4 of 10) [CMA-1472/2013]
impugned judgment as passed by the learned Commissioner
submitted that in terms of Section 30 of the Act of 1923, an
appeal can be entertained by this Court only if any substantial
question of law is found to have arisen. Herein, the findings as
recorded by the learned Commissioner being totally in consonance
with the evidence as led by the parties and in consonance with the
settled position of law does not deserve any interference. In
support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of
Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti
Garvali and Ors.; (2007) 11 SCC 668 & Malikarjuna G.
Hiremath Vs. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. and Anr.: AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2019 and the
judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mota Ram
and Anr.; S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2980/2017 (decided on
03.04.2024).
9. Heard learned counsels and perused the material available
on record.
10. As it is the settled position of law and as laid down in the
judgments as cited by learned counsel for the respondent
Insurance Company, a limited jurisdiction has been conferred upon
this Court so as to entertain an appeal under the Act of 1923, that
is to say, the jurisdiction of the High Court is confined only to the
extent of substantial question of law, if any, found to have arisen.
11. Parallely, it is also an established position of law that the
Commissioner, while deciding a claim petition in terms of the Act
of 1923, is under an obligation to record a finding after taking into
[2025:RJ-JD:3060] (5 of 10) [CMA-1472/2013]
consideration the evidence as led by the parties. Meaning thereby,
if the High Court finds that the findings as recorded by the
Commissioner are perverse, arbitrary or based on no evidence, it
is empowered to venture and re-appreciate the evidence. As
observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant
Shreshti's case (supra), a finding of fact arrived at without there
being any evidence, would give rise to a substantial question of
law. Therein, the Court specifically observed that,
"a question of law would, however, arise when the finding
is perverse in the sense that no legal evidence was
brought on record or jurisdictional facts were not brought
on record."
12. Testing on the above touch stone, this Court is of the clear
opinion that the findings as recorded by the learned Commissioner
are totally contrary to the pleadings, the oral evidence as led by
the parties and the documents as exhibited on record.
13. So far as the deceased being in employment of respondent
No.1 is concerned, the said fact has specifically been admitted by
respondent No.1 and hence, this Court is not required to delve
much into the same.
14. Considering the other aspects, this Court is of the opinion
that the following substantial questions of law arise for
consideration in the present appeal:
(A) Whether the learned Commissioner erred in holding
that death of the deceased was not caused during the
course of employment merely because the death was
caused by a cardiac arrest?
[2025:RJ-JD:3060] (6 of 10) [CMA-1472/2013]
(B) Whether the learned Commissioner erred in
rejecting the claim petition in toto while recording the
finding of deceased having expired because of a cardiac
arrest?
15. Coming on to the issue whether the death was caused during
the course of employment, this Court is of the clear opinion that
even if the findings as recorded by the learned Commissioner are
taken on the face of it and it is assumed that the deceased died
because of a cardiac arrest, it cannot be concluded that the same
was not during the course of employment. The evidence to the
effect that the deceased was the driver of the truck in question
and was driving continuously from Andhra Pradesh to Gujarat was
very well available on record.
16. Yusuf Khan (A.W.2) in his examination-in-chief specifically
deposed as under :
"eSa "kiFkiwoZd fuosnu djrk gwa fd fnukad 29-05-2008
dks mDr okgu esa Hkaxkj Hkjdj vka/kzk ls vgenkckn vk
jgs Fks fd Vªd dks pkyd "kksHkkyky pkfyr dj jgk Fkk
yxkrkj yacs le; rd Vªd pykus ls "kksHkkykyth Fkd
x;s Fks ftl ij ckSEcs gkWVy oYy.k] Fkkuk djt.k ftyk
cM+ksnk xqtjkr ds fudV Vªd dks jksdk vksj fQj
"kksHkkykyth vksj eSa Vªd ij jLlh [khap jgs Fks ftlls
vpkud jLlh VqVus ls "kksHkkykyth Nkrh ds cy fxj
x;s ,oa muds Nkrh esa pksVs vk;h ftlls mldh e`R;q
dkfjr gq;hA"
[2025:RJ-JD:3060] (7 of 10) [CMA-1472/2013]
17. Meaning thereby, the above specific evidence of the
deceased being driving since hours and being stressed and
strained because of same, has clearly been discarded by the
learned Commissioner.
18. In C. Manjamma's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
while dealing with a similar matter where the deceased who was a
driver expired because of a cardiac arrest while on duty, held that
the basic and fundamental facts were established by the claimants
that it had been a case of death during the course of employment
and having been caused due to the reasons attributable to the
employment. Therein, the Court observed that the driver who
expired while on duty because of a cardiac arrest was due to
stress and strain of his job.
19. In view of the ratio as laid down in C. Manjamma's case
(supra), this Court is of the clear opinion that the finding as
recorded by the learned Commissioner is contrary to the evidence
available on record. This Court holds that the death of the
deceased occurred due to an accident caused during the course of
his employment.
20. To conclude whether the incident in question can be termed
to be an 'accident', reliance on the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment
in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti's case (supra) would be
apropos wherein the Court highlighted the factors which are
required to be established so as to prove that the accident has
taken place. Therein the Court observed as under:
"11. In a case of this nature to prove that accident has
taken place, factors which would have to be
established, inter alia, are:
[2025:RJ-JD:3060] (8 of 10) [CMA-1472/2013]
1. Stress and strain arising during the course of
employment
2. Nature of employment
3. Injury aggravated due to stress and strain"
21. In the present matter, clear evidence to the effect that the
deceased being a driver of the truck in question was driving
continuously from Andhra Pradesh to Ahmedabad, was available
on record. He being tired because of the said continuous driving
was also specifically deposed by the eye witness AW-2. Being
already tired and stressed, his falling down while pulling the rope
can clearly be concluded to be a result of the said stress and
strain. Therefore, the claim could not have been rejected by the
learned Commissioner on the sole premise that the death was due
to a cardiac arrest. Even if the finding of the death having caused
due to a cardiac arrest is accepted, the same was clearly in course
of employment and hence, the claim could not have been rejected
on that count.
22. Coming on to the issue whether there was a variance in
pleading and proof, the claimants came up with the case of the
deceased having fallen down because of the rope having broken.
It is not that AW-2, the eye witness deposed contrary to the said
fact. He too specifically deposed that the deceased got down from
the truck and while pulling the rope, fell down because of the rope
having broken. The learned Tribunal relied solely upon the First
Information Report (Exhibit-1) and further, on the postmortem
report which was not even exhibited.
23. In the opinion of this Court, even if the said documents are
taken into consideration, what can be concluded from the overall
[2025:RJ-JD:3060] (9 of 10) [CMA-1472/2013]
facts is that the deceased who was driving since hours, on one
spot, got down from the truck to pull a rope. While doing so, he
suffered with a cardiac arrest and fell down and collapsed.
24. It is not disputed on record that at that point of time, he was
driving the vehicle in employment of respondent No.1, that is to
say, he died during the course of employment. Therefore, the
finding as recorded by the learned Commissioner does deserve
interference.
25. So far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel
for the respondent Insurance Company are concerned, the same
are clearly distinguishable because of the facts therein.
Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti's case (supra) was a matter
wherein the Court clearly observed that only evidence which was
brought on record was of the claimant with the following
averment:
"....My son died while working in the vehicle of R-1 and
due to the strain of work..."
26. The same is not the case here. Herein, evidence of Yusuf
Khan (A.W.2) who was an eye witness to the accident is available
wherein he clearly deposed that the deceased was driving since
hours and was tired and further that he fell down while pulling a
rope.
27. In Malikarjuna G. Hiremath's case (supra), the deceased
who was a driver, died due to drowning in a pond where he took a
break from his job to take a bath. In the said facts, the Hon'ble
Apex Court observed that the death could not be termed to have
occurred during the course of the employment.
[2025:RJ-JD:3060] (10 of 10) [CMA-1472/2013]
28. In view of the above analysis, the judgment impugned dated
13.08.2012 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner,
Udaipur is hereby quashed and set aside. The finding on Issue
No.1 is hereby reversed and it is held that the death of the
deceased was caused during the course of employment.
29. The matter is therefore, remanded back to the learned
Commissioner for decision on Issue Nos.2 to 5.
30. The learned Commissioner shall not be required to issue
fresh notices to the parties and all the parties shall be under an
obligation to appear before the learned Commissioner on
26.03.2025. The learned Commissioner shall, on basis of the
evidence available on record and keeping into consideration the
settled position of law regarding computation of compensation,
pass a decision on Issue Nos.2 to 5. He shall be under an
obligation to decide the matter, preferably within a period of four
weeks from 26.03.2025.
31. With the above observations and directions, the present
appeal is disposed of.
32. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
214-KashishS/Vij/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
