1. This appeal is filed against the order in WC No.70 of 1989 dated 25-2-1993 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Warangal, wherein the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation has held that the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation on account of the death of the deceased P.Ramaswamy and dismissed the said application filed for payment of compensation. Against that order, the present appeal is filed.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal should have held that the deceased Ramaswamy fell down from the steps and died while he was recording the meter reading in the Power Generation Plant of the respondent, therefore, he died during the course of employment and therefore, should have held that the respondent is liable to pay the compensation for the untimely death of the deceased. It is further contended that the Commissioner has not considered the evidence both oral and documentary in a proper perspective and came to a wrong conclusion that the deceased did not die during the course of employ and he died in the natural course due to cerebral haemorrhage, that the above conclusion arrived at by the learned Commissioner are contrary to the principles laid down by various High Courts in the country, therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner rejecting compensation is liable to be set aside.
3. To appreciate the above-said contentions, raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants, it is necessary to consider few facts of the case, which are as follows:
The deceased P.Ramaswamy, was employed as foreman by the respondent on the fateful day he was asked to attend in leave replacement duty i.e., on 13-2-1988 at about 10-00 pm and suddenly fell downwhile recording the meter reading in the Power Generation Plant of the respondent, hence the death was occurred during the course of employment, therefore, the petitioners-applicants have claimed compensation for the untimely death of the deceased.
4. On an earlier occasion, on21-1-1991, the Commissioner after hearing both the parties, passed detailed order directing the authorities to deposit Rs.66,516-00 as compensation payable to the dependants of the deceased and the respondents have deposited the said amount on 27-2-1991 made vide Demand Draft No.616324 dated 27-2-1991 and filed an appeal before this Court and this Court vide its order dated 3-12-1991 in CMA No.406 of 1991 remanded the matter after setting aside the order dated 21-1-1991, on the ground that the authority has not given any opportunity for the respondents to adduce medical evidence. Therefore, the case was re-opened and permitted the respondents to examine Dr. M.S. Ratiga Rao, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Paloncha and accordingly the said doctor was examined as RW2. Thus there are three witnesses on behalf of the petitioners and two witnesses on behalf of the respondents.
5. Now the Tribunal, in its order, has reversed the earlier finding that the deceased must have met with some unspecified and unknown accident. He arrived at that finding due to non-examination of the doctor, who conducted post-mortem. Now the evidence of the doctor, RW2, is crucial in this case. The Commissioner has reproduced his sworn statement, as under: -
'...On 13-2-1988 at 4-10 p.m. I conducted autopsy on the dead body of Pusa Ramaswamy aged 50 years referred by Police Station, Paloncha.
I did not find any injury on the body, cerebral haemorrhage (collection of blooddue to rupture of vessels of brain) was seen due to rupture of vessels of brain.
The cause of death is cerebro-vascular haemorrhage. The approximate time of death of the deceased P. Ratnaswamy was 18 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. I issued Ex.R1 which is postmortem certificate. I have examined the body internally and externally. There are neither external nor internal injuries. I can say that the death is not due to any vehicular or mechanical or electrical accident. I can say that it is natural death due to cerebral haemorrhage..'
Relying on the evidence of RW2, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the deceased died a natural death in the course of his employment and the death is not connected with any accident arising out of the employment of the deceased. The Commissioner has rejected the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the deceased died when he was taking meter reading after falling down from the steps during the course of employment, that the cerebral irrigation usually results from slightly severe injuries caused by a blow or a fall on the forehead, temple etc. He also referred to a book on Medical Jurisprudence, authored by N.J.Modi. The respondent Counsel submitted that the witnesses on behalf of the petitioners have not stated anything about the accident and that no body knew how the deceased died and that the body of the deceased was found in second unit instead of in fourth unit. The deceased was posted to duty at the fourth unit in the Power Generation Plant of the respondent.
6. After evaluating both oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner held that the deceased died a natural death and that he did not die due to any accident arising out of his employment. He further held that he is supported in hisfinding by the clear and cogent evidence ofRW2, and therefore, rejected the claim of the petitioners, as the accident was not occurred during the course of employment.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant while making submissions that the deceased died in the course of employment has taken me to the evidence of RW2. If the evidence of RW2 is taken into account that the death was caused due to cerebral haemorrhage, it can be said the cerebral haemorrhage was caused due to the stress and strain in the employment in that duty in which he was working on that day. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner is illegal and liable to be set aside and he relied on a judgment Hindustan Steel construction Limited v. Nuraisha Khatoon, : (1999)IIILLJ492Pat , wherein the learned Judge of Patna High Court has considered Section 3(1) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and held that the said section of the Act is attracted not only in cases of physical accident or event happening externally to a workman but also in cases of event happening internally to a workman; such as failure of heart and the like. However, it is made clear that if a person dies a natural death, then it could not be said that his death was caused out of his employment. But if a person suffering from some disease or ailment dies or receives injury while discharging his normal duty and employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the death of the workman, then Section 3 of the Act is attracted as the death is caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The learned Judge further observed that in other words, if it can be proved on behalf of the workman that the death was caused not only by the ailment or disease but ailment coupled with the employment has caused the death, then the employer is liable for payment of compensation. The above-said observations were made by the learned Judge in a case where the deceased Ali Ahmed who was employed as Driver under Bokaro Steel CityLimited in slag granulation plant, and while he was on duty he died on 30-6-1979. The respondent filed an application under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, stating infer alia, that her husband died on 30-6-1979 in a fatal accident while he was employed as a driver in the slag granulation plant Bokaro Steel City Limited, Dhanbad. Their claim was rejected by the respondents. Therefore, they approached the Commissioner and the Presiding Officer, Labour Court after recording the evidence came to the conclusion that the accident caused injury to the workman resulting in his death and it occurred during the course of employment and awarded compensation. When the matter was carried to the High Court, in appeal, the High Court, while considering Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and after going through catena of decisions, held that the deceased died during the course of employment is not in dispute. The only dispute is as to whether he died by an accident arising out of employment. The evidence on record shows that the deceased was employed as a driver in the slag granulation plant, Bokari Steel City Limited. On 30-6-1979 at 6-15 pm he suddenly developed severe pain in the chest white he was fixing-changing tyre of the ambulance. He was on duty on that day from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. He was taken to hospital, where he was declared dead. Ex.A2 is the post-mortem report and according to the doctor cause of death is due to sudden cerebral haemorrhage and shock. He found the following internal injury:
'On dissection found the size of the heart comparatively bigger than the normal size; right chamber of the heart containing some blood clots; left chamber of the heart found empty. Lungs congested, liver pale and bulky; kidneys slightly congested. Spleen also congested. Stomach full of semi-digested food particles. Urinary bladder partially full. On opening the skull found the blood vessels on the brain surface congestedwith blood and blood clots in the brain surface i.e., intracranial (cerebral)haemorrhage..'
No doubt the doctor has opined that the deceased died a natural death but it appeared that his heart was enlarged and from which it can reasonably be inferred that he was suffering from some heart ailment from before and on the date of happening while discharging his normal duties he developed a severe chest pain and because of that he died. In my opinion the deceased did not die a natural death and his death was not because of disease only by disease (heart ailment) coupled with employment caused his death and therefore, the trial Cour/was right in holding that the death was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
8, In similar circumstances, the Orissa High Court, also had an occasion to interpret Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act in a decision Swarnalatha Samal and Others v. Choudhury Kanduri Charan Das, : (1996)ILLJ7Ori . The widow of Rasananda Samal, claimed that on 27-7-1987 her husband, who was under employment of the respondent, Bajrang Stone crushing Plant at Chadheidhara, suffered from reeling of head and fell down senseless, he was removed from the site to Jaipur Road Hospital and therefrom to SCB Medical College Hospital, where in the night of 28-7-1987, he expired. Therefore, his wife filed claim petition and the learned Commissioner on discussion of the evidence on record, held that the deceased did not die of an accident and since the evidence on record proved that he died of hypertension, this could not be said to be an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. While deciding the issue whether the death of the deceased was in the course of his employment, the learned Commissioner based on the evidence of PW2 and death certificate, and observed that the nature ofwork of a supervisor does not warrant any risk of the attack of hypertension. There is absolutely no nexus between the blood pressure and nature of work the deceased was performing. Hypertension of the workers in stone crushing plant is also not an occupational disease as mentioned under Schedule III of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Besides, it could not be proved at all that there was an accident of the deceased for which there was a brain haemorrhage and he expired. Hence, had there been a real accident, the real applicants must have filed this claim application before 8-6-1989 or within the time limit and not after two months of the money suit filed by opposite party against the son of the deceased.
9. After considering the above reasoning of the Commissioner, the learned Judge of the Orissa High Court has held that the above reasoning is not backed by any medical opinion. To say that the nature of work of supervisor does not warrant any risk of attack of hypertension is wholly incorrect. It is common knowledge that mental stress and strain and obesity are the two major contributing factors which develop blood pressure. It cannot be said that a supervisor working in a stone quarry does not work under stress and strain and it is only the elite and sophisticated persons who only suffer from stress and strain. It is just opposite in the sense that a person who carries on regular exercise or a person who is engaged in daily physical labour hardly suffers from any hypertension though there may be rare exceptions. In coming to such a conclusion, the learned Judge has also relied on a decision General Superintendent Talcher Thermal Station v. Bijuli Naik, 1994 ACJ 1054, wherein it was held that a casual connection between the employment and the injury caused by the accident must exist, after looking at the entire facts a fair inference could be drawn that the employment caused the injury, then the employer wouldbe liable to pay the compensation. The learned Judge, therefore, finally held that Rasananda died on account of accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and the appellants are entitled to compensation.
10. If the principle laid down in the above two decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellants is applied to the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the deceased died when he was working in leave replacement duty in the fourth unit, when the deceased was taking meter reading, he fell down from the steps and died. The evidence of doctor shows that the deceased died due to cerebro-vascular haemorrhage and it was further stated that he died a natural death. As was held by the Orissa High Court, cerebral haemorrhage can be caused due to stress and strain in the work in which the deceased was engaged. Therefore, I hold that the reasoning given by the learned Commissioner that-
'.....On the basis of the evidence led before me I hold that the deceased died a natural death and that he did not die by any accident arising out of his employment. I am supported in this finding by the clear and cogent evidence of RW2 who is a Civil Assistant Surgeon in the Government Hospital at Paloncha in Khammam District and who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sri P. Ramaswamy on 13-2-1988 at 4-10 p.m...'
is not correct and it is contrary to the principle laid down by High Courts at Patna and Orissa, referred to above. Though the death of the deceased was not caused due to any accident during the course of his employment, but as the death was caused due to stress and strain in the job, in which the deceased was working, while recording the meter reading in Power Generation Room, he fell down and died. Therefore, Ihold that the facts and circumstances of the case, comes within the purview of Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, that the death was occurred out of and in the course of employment and therefore, the appellants are entitled to the compensation.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed remanding the matter to the Court of Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation to assess the compensation payable to the appellants on account of the death of their bread-winner within three months from the date of this order. No costs.