Judgment:
(Prayer: This MFA is filed under Section 30(1) of W.C. Act against the Judgment dated 1.9.2010 passed in KaPaKa:F:SR-128/2007 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, Hassan Sub Division, Hassan.)
1. The award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation dated 1st September 2010 granting compensation of Rs.3,32,580/- is called in question in this appeal.
2. Mr. K. Prakash, the husband of the 1st respondent and father of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and son of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 died due to heart attack on the night intervening between 6.10.2006 and 7.10.2006 while he was sleeping in the bus. The deceased was a driver by profession and he was employed by the appellant - Corporation. He was entrusted to drive the KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA 18 F-0103 on Route No.99 on 6.10.2006. PW-2 was the Conductor of the bus. The bus left Arasikere at 8 a.m. on 6.10.2006; the deceased drove the bus to Mysore via Channarayapatna and K.R. Pet; thereafter the bus was driven to Naniangud and back to Mysore; the bus left Mysore at 3,30 p.m. and reached Arasikere at 6.30 p.m. The duty of the driver/deceased was completed after reaching Arasikere. However he was directed oy the higher officials of the Corporation to take one more trip from Arasikere-Shimoga-Mysore-Arasikere. Thereafter he drove the bus to Shimoga at 9.15 p.m. The driver as well as PW-2 slept in the bus during the night intervening between 6.10.2006 and 7.10.2006 since the deceased was informed by the higher officials to drive back the bus from Shimoga to Mysore at 4 a.m. on 7.10.2006. Unfortunately after reaching Shimoga, while he was sleeping during the night intervening between 6.10.2006 and 7.10.2006, driver of the bus suffered massive heart attack and died in the bus. Same is confirmed by post¬mortem report. The respondents being the legal representatives of the deceased workman fiied petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act (the Act' for short). Considering the entire material on record, the Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.3,32,580/- with interest at 12% per annum. Award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is called in question in this appeal.
3. The appeal was admitted by raising the following substantial question of law:
"Whether a driver, after the day's duty, dying of a heart attack while sleeping in the bus awaiting his next morning's duty, could be constructed as his death due to an accident while on duty, so as to sustain a claim for relief by his legai representatives under the workman's compensation Act 1972 ?
4. There can be assertion that the dying of a workman sleeping in a bus after completion of his day's duties is a natural death. But actually it may not be so under the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The occurrence of accident needs to be seen from the facts and circumstances of the particular case. There cannot be any generalization of accident occurring during the course or out of employment, it is bound to differ from profession to profession, and also depends upon the nature of employment.
5. Sri R.I. D'Sa, learned advocate for the appellants submits that there is nothing on record to show that the deceased driver was put to strain and stress because of the avocation; there is no direct nexus between the work entrusted to him and the death; there is no accident as such suffered by the deceased workman; since no material is available to support the case of the respondents that the accident has occurred out of employment and strain, the Commissioner is not justified in awarding compensation. He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SHAK'JNTALA CHANDRAKANT SHRESHTI .vs. PRABHAKAR MARUTI GARVALI reported in AIR 2007 SC 248 in support of his contention that the respondents are not entitled 10 compensation under the provisions of the Act.
The appeal is opposed by Smt. A.R. Sharadamba, learned advocate appearing for respondents inter alia contending that the material on record clearly reveals that the workman was suffering from heart ailment and he refused to go on work on that day i.e., on 6.10.2006 because of strain and stress; he was forced to drive the bus on the relevant day because of shortage of drivers in the appellant - Corporation.
6. The more usual case of an accident is an event happening externally to a man. 'Accident' and 'injury' are distinct in cases where accident is an event happening externally to a man; e.g., when a workman falls from the ladder and suffers injury. The less obvious cases of accident are strain causing rupture, bursting of aneurism, failure of muscular action of the heart, exposure to draught causing chiil etc., Such accidents can be called as internal accidents. In such cases, it is hardly possible to distinguish between the 'accident' and 'injury'. The rupture is an accident, at the same time injury leading to death or incapacity at once or after a lapse of time. Thus in cases of internal accidents, "Accident" and "Injury" coincide. The Workmen's Compensation Act, therefore, really intends to convey as to what might be expressed as an 'accidental injury'. But the common factor in all cases of accident, whether 'internal' or 'external' is some concrete happening at a definite point of time and incapacity resulting from such happening. An accident happening to a person in or about any premises at which, he is for the time being employed for the purpose of his employer's trade or business shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of employment.
At a times accident need not be due to immediate cause or as a result of collusion or sudden mishap. Even a non-spontaneous injury resulting in death or causing injury to workman during the course or arising out of employment can also be termed as accidental injury.
7. Even if a workman dies from a pre-existing disease, if the disease is aggravated or accelerated under the circumstances which can be said to be accidental, his death results from injury by accident. In this case, the post¬mortem examination showed thai the death was caused due to cardiac failure as a resuit of coronary insufficiency consequent to chronic coronary artery disease. The aneurism, if is in advanced condition, the same might burst while the man was asleep, and very slight exertion or strain would be sufficient to bring about a rupture. If the workman were to die whi'e on duty, it might be because of something going wrong within the human frame itself, such as breaking of a blood vessel, coronary artery disease etc., If that occurred, it would properly be described as an internal accident.
8. The word, 'injury' includes physiological injury. The physiological injury suffered by a workman due mainly to the progress of a disease unconnected with employment, may amount to an injury arising out of and in the course of employment if the work which the workman was doing at the time of the occurrence of the injury contributed to its occurrence. The connection between the injury and employment may be furnished by ordinary strain of ordinary work if the strain did in fact contribute to or accelerate or hasten the injury.
9. The Workmen's Compensation Act was enacted to provide for payment by certain classes of employers to workmen for compensation against injury by accident. To come within the purview of Section 3 of the Act, it is not necessary that the workman must be actually working at the time of the injury or the accident. Therefore, there must be two factors (a) that there must be injury which must be caused in an accident; (b) it must be caused in the course of and out of the employment.
10. Having regard to the fact that the Workmen's Compensation Act is a welfare legislation aimed to soothen the agony of a workman or his dependents, as the case may be, an interpretation which would advance that salutary object and intendment has to be adopted. The Courts are not to defeat the very purpose of the enactment by adopting a totally negative approach to the claim which the claimants advanced before the Court.
11. The Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA .vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR reported in (2008)9 SCC 527 after discussing the law on the point has concluded that Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 provides for compensation for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, and this compensation is not for negligence on the part of the employer but is a sort of insurance to workmen against certain risks of accidents.
12. The term 'accidental injury' has not been defined under the Act. The liability of the employer for payment of compensation, however, would arise if a persona! injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. An accident may lead to death but that an accident had taken place must be proved. Only because a death has taken place in course of employment will not amount to accident. In other words, death must arise out of accident. There is no presumption that an accident nad occurred. In a case of this nature to prove that accident has taken place, factors which would have to be established, inter alia, are: (i) stress and strain arising during the course of employment; (ii) nature of employment; (iii) injury aggravated due to stress and strain.
13. In the matter on hand, admittedly the workman was driver working in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. The Conductor of the bus - PW-2, who had slept alongwith the deceased workman at the time of incident in the bus, has specifically deposed before the Commissioner that the deceased informed the officials of the appellant - Corporation in the morning of 6.10.2006 at the time of reporting for duty itself that he is having chest pain and that he is not able to drive the bus; despite the same, the officials of the appellant - Corporation insisted the driver that he should drive the vehicle on that day because of lack of drivers strength on that particular day. The officials of the appellant - Corporation insisted that the deceased shail complete the trip. Because of such pressure by the officials, the deceased went on duty during the relevant day. The very fact, that the deceased was made to drive the bus from morning till evening of 6.10.2006 on Route No.99 and that he was again instructed to drive the bus from the evening of 6.10.2006 till next day as aforementioned on the route Arasikere-Shimoga- Mysore- Arasikere, clearly reveals that the death has occurred while he was on duty. It is not open for the driver to leave the bus at Shimoga bus station and come Dack to his home at Arasikere which is about more than 150 kilometers from Shimoga. Since the deceased was entrusted with the bus and as he was directed by the higher officials to drive back the bus from Shimoga to Mysore at 4 a.m. on the next day i.e., 7.10.2006, the argument of the learned counsel for appellants that the death was not while the deceased was on duty, cannot be accepted. The work was entrusted to the deceased at 8 a.m. on 6.10.2006 and it was to continue tils the next da/ evening (i.e., approximately for about 36- 40 hours) though there was a short gap of about 6 to 7 hours at Shimoga. As is clear from the evidence of PW-2, the deceased was suffering from headache, chest pain when he reached Shimoga from Mysore on the night of 6.10.2006. Immediately he went to medicai shop arid purchased some pills and consumed the same for relief from headache. Unfortunately, the deceased suffered massive heart attack while asleep in the bus during the night intervening between 6.10.2006 and 7.10.2006. Hence the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is justified in concluding that the death was direct result of continuous and heavy work entrusted to the deceased and that the deceased died during the course of duty. It is the specific evidence of PW-2 that in the morning of 6.10.2006 itself the deceased had complained that he is suffering from chest pain. Despite the same, the officials of the Corporation forced the deceased to drive the bus because of dearth of drivers' strength on that day. Such evidence of PW-2 - Conductor is not even controverted in the cross- examination. On the other hand in the cross-examination PW-2 has denied the suggestion of the appellant - Corporation that the work undertaken by the deceased was not strenuous. From the aforementioned unccntroverted evidence of PW-2, it is clear that the deceased was suffering from stress and strain because of heavy pressure of work on that day.
14. In the matter on hand, the stress and strain suffered by the deceased did mainly contribute to or accelerate the Injury. If the deceased were to take rest on 6.10.2006 without attending the work, probably he would have saved his life. But he was forced to work since morning of 6.10.2006. When he reached Shimoga during riight of 6.10.2006, he was completely exhausted and immediately he took some pills. Unfortunately, he lost his life while in sleep. Thus the case on hand is the finest example relating to direct connection between injury and employment and loss of life due to strain of ordinary work. The stress and strain did contribute to and accelerate the injury {see the judgment in the case of JYOTMI ADFMMA .vs. PLANT ENGINEER, NELLORE - (2006)5 SCC 513)}.
15. In the cross-examination, it is also brougnt out that since two weeks prior to his death, the deceased was suffering from chest pain. The post-mortem report amply makes it clear that the death was due to cardiac failure as a result of coronary insufficiency consequent to chronic coronary artery disease. Therefore the circumstances as brought out by the claimants clearly reveal that the death was caused as a result of failure of the heart which is because of strain and stress of the work. Stress and strain has resulted in sudden heart failure and the death has occurred during the course of employment. The pre¬existing heart condition of the deceased was aggravated by the strain of work of the deceased and the same has resulted in his death.
16. Sri D'Sa sought to contend that the deceased driver died naturally i.e., due to heart attack. But the material on record amply reveals that the workman was forcibly engaged to work on particular day which accelerated his death. From the evidence available on record, it is clear that the workman had died of heart attack; there beirig a pre-existing heart condition which was aggravated by the strain of the work of the deceased and the Sc'me has resulted in his death. The death of the workman was not due to the disease from which he was suffering, but on account of factors coupled with employment. Aforementioned facts have led the Commissioner to conclude that the death occurred as consequence of and in the course of employment.
Hence the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is justified in awarding compensation. Accordingly, no interference is called for.
The question of law is answered accordingly.
Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be disbursed in favour of the respondents.