The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Mettupalayam Vs. Rosalin and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1187249
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided OnNov-23-2016
Case NumberC.M.A(MD)No. 929 of 2006 & M.P.(MD)No. 1 of 2014
JudgeS.M. Subramaniam
AppellantThe New India Assurance Company Ltd., Mettupalayam
RespondentRosalin and Another
Excerpt:
workmen's compensation act - section 30 -(prayer:-civil miscellaneous appeal filed under section 30 of workmen's compensation act, against the award dated 28.12.2005 made in w.c.no.61 of 2004, on the file of the workmen's compensation commissioner and deputy commissioner of labour, tirunelveli and praying to set aside the same.) the appellant/new india assurance company limitedhas filed the present c.m.a(md)no.929 of 2006, challenging the award passed inw.c.no.61 of 2004, dated 28.12.2005, on the file of the workmen's compensation commissioner and deputy commissioner of labour, tirunelveli. 2. it is a case of death occurred on account of heart attack sustained by the respondent / claimant during the course of employment. the legal heirs of the employee filed an application seeking compensation under the workmen's compensation act before the competent authority and the competent authority awarded rs.1,97,425/- as total compensation. challenging the same, the appellant/new india assurance company has preferred the present appeal solely on the ground that the deceased was died on account of heart attack, which cannot be construed as an accident and the death occurred due to the pre-existing weaknesses and the ailments. 3. the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the heart attack occurs normally on various situations and circumstances and therefore it is to be proved beyond doubt that the attack happened on account of an employment more specifically on stress and strain. in the absence of proving the stress and strain during the course of employment, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation and the appellant/insurance company is to be exonerated from liability. though the hon'ble supreme court in an earlier case reported in air 2007 supreme court 248 said that the death by way of carditis has occurred because of stress and strain, the commissioner under workmen compensation act will not have jurisdiction to grant damages, but subsequent judgment of the hon'ble supreme court reported in 2013 (1) tn mac (sc) held as follows:- "23. in a recent decision of this court in shakuntala chandrakant shreshti v. prabhakar maruti garvali and another, 2006 (2) tnmac 255 1 (sc) (supra), the factors to be established to prove that an accident has taken place have been culled out and stated as under in paragraph 28: "28. in a case of this nature to prove that accident has taken place, factors which would have to be established, inter alia, are: 1. stress and strain arising during the course of employment 2. nature of employment 3. injury aggravated due to stress and strain." 24. in malikarjuna g.hiremath v. branch manager, oriental insurance co. ltd. and another, 2009 (1) tn mac 346 (sc) : air 2009 sc 2019, the principles to attract section 3 of the workmen's compensation act have been stated as under in paragraph 14: "14. there are a large number of english and american decisions, some of which have been taken note of in esi corpn's case (supra), in regard to essential ingredients for such finding and the tests attracting the provisions of section 3 of the act. the principles are: (1) there must be a casual connection between the injury and the accident and the accident and the work done in the course of employment. (2) the onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the work and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated the injury. (3) if the evidence brought on records establishes a greater probability which satisfies a reasonable man that the work contributed to the causing of the personal injury, it would be enough for the workman to succeed, but the same would depend upon the fact of each case." 4. on reading of the findings of the award passed by the tribunal under the workmen compensation act, it is unambiguous that the deceased was a driver and he was on leave before joining duty and soon after he joining duty while in the course of employment, he suffered heart attack and died instantly. therefore, the facts of the case can be fitted with the category of "stress and strain arising during the course of employment" as decided by the hon'ble supreme court in the case cited supra. hence, this court is not inclined to re-consider the award passed by the tribunal under the workmen compensation act and the order passed in w.c.no.61 of 2004, dated 28.12.2005 is confirmed and the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. 5. the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company represented that the entire award amount has already been deposited and the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest through rtgs, by filing necessary application before the tribunal. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
Judgment:

(Prayer:-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, against the award dated 28.12.2005 made in W.C.No.61 of 2004, on the file of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli and praying to set aside the same.)

The appellant/New India Assurance Company Limitedhas filed the present C.M.A(MD)No.929 of 2006, challenging the award passed inW.C.No.61 of 2004, dated 28.12.2005, on the file of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli.

2. It is a case of death occurred on account of Heart Attack sustained by the respondent / claimant during the course of employment. The legal heirs of the employee filed an application seeking compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act before the competent authority and the competent authority awarded Rs.1,97,425/- as total compensation. Challenging the same, the appellant/New India Assurance Company has preferred the present appeal solely on the ground that the deceased was died on account of heart attack, which cannot be construed as an accident and the death occurred due to the pre-existing weaknesses and the ailments.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the heart attack occurs normally on various situations and circumstances and therefore it is to be proved beyond doubt that the attack happened on account of an employment more specifically on stress and strain. In the absence of proving the stress and strain during the course of employment, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation and the appellant/Insurance Company is to be exonerated from liability. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an earlier case reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 248 said that the death by way of carditis has occurred because of stress and strain, the Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act will not have jurisdiction to grant damages, but subsequent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 (1) TN MAC (SC) held as follows:-

"23. In a recent decision of this Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another, 2006 (2) TNMAC 255 1 (SC) (supra), the factors to be established to prove that an accident has taken place have been culled out and stated as under in paragraph 28:

"28. In a case of this nature to prove that accident has taken place, factors which would have to be established, inter alia, are:

1. stress and strain arising during the course of employment

2. nature of employment

3. injury aggravated due to stress and strain."

24. In Malikarjuna G.Hiremath v. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2009 (1) TN MAC 346 (SC) : AIR 2009 SC 2019, the principles to attract Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act have been stated as under in paragraph 14:

"14. There are a large number of English and American decisions, some of which have been taken note of in ESI Corpn's case (supra), in regard to essential ingredients for such finding and the tests attracting the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The principles are:

(1) There must be a casual connection between the injury and the accident and the accident and the work done in the course of employment.

(2) The onus is upon the Applicant to show that it was the work and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated the injury.

(3) If the evidence brought on records establishes a greater probability which satisfies a reasonable man that the work contributed to the causing of the personal injury, it would be enough for the workman to succeed, but the same would depend upon the fact of each case."

4. On reading of the findings of the award passed by the Tribunal under the Workmen Compensation Act, it is unambiguous that the deceased was a driver and he was on leave before joining duty and soon after he joining duty while in the course of employment, he suffered heart attack and died instantly. Therefore, the facts of the case can be fitted with the category of "stress and strain arising during the course of employment" as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case cited supra. Hence, this Court is not inclined to re-consider the award passed by the Tribunal under the Workmen Compensation Act and the order passed in W.C.No.61 of 2004, dated 28.12.2005 is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company represented that the entire award amount has already been deposited and the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest through RTGS, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.