1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20-1-1995 passed in CWC-3/FC/CR-9 of 1992 by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Division III, Bangalore, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. The appellant-Company is having its factory at Vimanapura, Bangalore. The deceased Ramaknshna, who is the husband of the first respondent herein was working in the respondent-Company, He was working in Manufacturing Inspection (Aircraft Division) from 8-11-1966 to 26-12-1991. On 26-12-1991, he died. As such, the first respondent filed an application along with other respondents for compensation. The Commissioner after conducting the enquiry, passed the impugned order holding that the respondents are entitled to the compensation of Rs. 62,588/- with other benefits.
3. Mr. R. Gururajan, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was suffering from ill-health, as such, he was given treatment and looking to the ailment he had suffered, he was given lighter work. As such, it could not be said that there was any nexus between his natural death and the nature of the work. It is further submitted that according to the Doctor, it is a natural death. There is no evidence on record to show that he died on account of the accidental injury and he also relied upon two decisions namely in case of Kamalabai v Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur, wherein it is stated as follows.-
'Workmen's compensation -- 'Accident' -- Meaning of -- When employer is liable to pay compensation for death by accident Necessity -- of causal connection between death and employment --Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Section 3(1).
The word 'accident' which is not defined in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, generally means some unexpected event happening without design. To decide whether an occurrence is an accident, it must be regarded from the point of view of the workman who suffered from it. If it is unexpected and without design on his part, it may be an accident even though it may have been intentionally caused by the author of it or by some act committed wilfully by him.
Compensation is not payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in all cases where a workman dies in the course of his employment. It may be that he died or got injured in the course of his employment, but, there must be a causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment. Where the evidence is clear that the deceased workman, who was suffering from a heart disease, died a naturaldeath and not on account of any strain which he had on account of his employment, the employer cannot be made liable to pay any compensation under the Act'.
And in case of Regional Director ESI Corporation v Francis De Costa and Another, in paras 28 and 29 it is stated as follows.-
'28. In the case of Dover Navigation Company Limited v Isabella Craig, it was observed by Lord Wright that.-
'Nothing could be simpler than the words 'arising out of and in the course of employment' it is clear that there are two conditions to be fulfilled. What arises 'in the course of the employment is to be distinguished from what arises 'out of the employment'. The former words relate to time conditioned by reference to the man's service, the latter to causality. Not every accident which occurs to a man during the time when he is on his employment, that is directly or indirectly engaged on what he is employed to do, gives a claim to compensation unless it also arises out of the employment. Hence the section imports a distinction which it does not define. The language is simple and unqualified'.
29. Although the facts of this case are quite dissimilar, the principles laid down in this case, are instructive and should be borne in mind. In order to succeed, it has to be proved by the employee that (1) there was an accident (2) the accident had a causal connection with the employment and (3) the accident must have been suffered in course of employment. In the facts of this case, we are of the view that the employee was unable to prove that the accident had any causal connection with the work he was doing at the factory and in any event, it was not suffered in the course of employment'.
4. On the other hand, Mr. T.R.K. Prasad, learned Counsel for respondent supported the award. In view of this, it is to be seen whether any interference is required.
5. As far as employment of the deceased is concerned, it is not in dispute. Further as far as his working on the date of the accident is not in dispute. The only thing to be seen whether he died on account of accidental injury. In the case of Kamalabai's case, supra, it is specifically stated that the compensation is not payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in all cases where a workman dies in the course of his employment. It may be that he died or got injured in the course of his employment, but, there must be a causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment. If the award of the Commissioner is to be accepted then whoever dies in the course of employment is entitled for the compensation. In the said case, it is clearly enunciated that the burden is still on the claimant to establish that it had causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment. Inthe case on hand, the deceased was Inspector. Naturally he must be doing the work of the inspection. There is no evidence on record to show that he was required to lift heavy articles or any items so that he could strain himself. It is also observed that earlier he had some health problem. Mr. Gururajan, submits that because of this, he was given lighter work. However, in my opinion still more evidence is required to establish namely the deceased died only on account of the work he was carrying on and if the death has taken in the natural course of way, automatically it goes to show that there was no causal connection between his death and the employment. This gap is found in the order of the Commissioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in unequivocal terms stated that merely there is death of a person in the course and out of employment, his L.Rs need not be compensated. In para 29, it is specifically stated in the case of Regional Director, ESI Corporation, that it must be proved (1) there was an accident, (2) the accident had causal connection with the employment and (3) the accident has occurred in the course of the employment. However, to give one more chance to the respondents, in the interest of justice to prove all these three ingredients, I am inclined to remand this matter by setting aside the order of the lower Court. Hence the following order.
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Division III, Bangalore for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunities to both sides. The amount in deposit before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner shall not be refunded till this case is disposed of.