The Depot Manager vs Smt.A.B.Razia Sultana
2021 Latest Caselaw 4058 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


     CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1149 OF 2005


                          JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the

APSRTC against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Warangal-I

in W.C. No.73 of 2001 dt.30.09.2004.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this Appeal are that one Mr. A.B.

Saleem was in the employment of the appellant corporation as driver.

On 08.06.1997 while he was driving the vehicle bearing No.1483 on

the route Hyderabad, he suffered a massive heart stroke. Immediately

he was given first aid treatment at Gayathri Hospital, Kothagudem

and subsequently on 09.09.1997, while undergoing treatment in

Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, he died. The dependents of the

deceased driver filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for

Workmen's Compensation seeking a compensation of Rs.1,97,600/-.

The respondents filed a counter contending that the claim of the

dependents that the driver was given restless work, due to which he

suffered massive heart stroke, is not correct. It was also submitted that

the driver had availed leave from 09.06.1997 to 16.06.1997 for rest

and medical check-up and was directed to Tarnaka hospital for

treatment and it was during the period of treatment that he died and

therefore the death has not occurred out of employment. However, the

Commissioner held that the incident has taken place while the driver

was on duty. He accordingly granted a compensation of Rs.1,97,600/-.

Against the said award, the respondent corporation is in appeal by

raising the ground that the deceased had died not because of

occupational disease but due to heart attack and therefore there is no

nexus between his duty and cause of death.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants, Sri B. Mayur Reddy, argued

that the death is not due to any reason attributable to the duties of the

deceased as a driver and therefore the compensation awarded by the

Commissioner is not sustainable.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, Sri A.V.Ratnam,

submitted that the deceased was in regular employment of the

appellants and during the course of duty, he suffered heart stroke and

therefore, the death subsequently due to the heart attack is in the

course of his employment and the compensation awarded by the

Commissioner for Workmen's Company is reasonable and just.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on

record, this Court finds that the deceased driver experienced heart

attack / stroke during the course of his employment and though the

death has been subsequent thereto during the treatment period, it

cannot be said that the death is not due to his employment. As long as

there is a casual connection between the employment of the deceased

as the driver and his death subsequently, it has to be held to be out of

his employment. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of

Abdul Sattar Rahmanbai Vs. Julekhabi Ramhan Daryaward and

others1, held that if any employee, while on duty dies of heart attack,

the employer will be liable for payment of compensation to his

dependents and it is immaterial as to whether the employee was

actually performing his duties or not. Therefore, this Court finds no

reason to interfere with the award of the Commissioner.

6. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No

order as to costs.

7. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall also

stand dismissed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

Dt.01.12.2021 Svv

LLR 1989 page 289