Venu Vs. Krishnappa - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- workmens compensation act, 1923 [c.a. no. 8/1923]. section 19; [k. ramanna, j] employment injury death of driver due to heart attack while on duty - liability of the insurer - fastening the liability on the insurer/appellant to indemnify the owner of the vehicle nexus between the death of the deceased and the nature of work carried out by him held, considering the nature of work carried out by the deceased who was a driver of heavy vehicle and further as there is no previous history of chest pain or hear attack, the same be related to his nature of work and out of stress and strain for continuously driving the heavy vehicle, he suffered heart attack. as such, the nexus betweens the death of the deceased and the nature of work carried out by him has been clearly established. further, the commissioner was right in holding that the death of deceased arose out of and during the course of his employment under respondent no. 6 and has rightly fastened the liability on the appellant/insurer to indemnify the employer/owner of the vehicle. therefore, the order under challenge does not require any interference. - the complaint filed by the petitioner is well within time.m.m. mirdhe, j.1. this criminal revision petition is filed under section 397(1) of the criminal procedure code to set aside the order dated december 4, 1990, passed by the metropolitan magistrate, iv court, bangalore, in case no. pcr 290 of 1990.2. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records of the case. learned counsel for the respondent has remained absent at the time of hearing of this case.3. the revision petition is admitted.4. with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner, i have heard this matter on merits today.5. the petitioner filed a compliant under section 200, criminal procedure code, against the respondent alleging that he has committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instrument act, 1881.6. the magistrate took cognizance and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and then he dismissed the complaint under section 203. criminal procedure code, on the ground that the complaint was filed on august 21, 1990 which was beyond the period of one month of arising of the cause of action under section 138(c) of the act. the view taken by the magistrate is wrong. the cheque was issued by the respondent on june 15, 1990. it is alleged to have been dishonoured on july 7, 1990. the petitioner issued a notice to the respondent on july 9, 1990. the notice is served on the respondent on july 14, 1990. under section 138(c) of the act, the respondent has 15 days time to pay the dues. that date would be july 30, 1990. the respondent had time to pay the amount of the cheque on or before july 30, 1990. the petitioner could not have filed any complaint before that date. the respondent had time to pay the amount of the cheque till then. therefore, the cause of action has not arisen till july 30, 1990. it arose only on july 30, 1990, when, on the expiry of the 15-day period, the respondent did not pay the amount of the cheque and from that date the petitioner had one month's time under clause (b) of section 142 of the act. the complaint filed by the petitioner is well within time. the magistrate was wrong in dismissing it as having been filed beyond the period of limitation.7. hence, i make the following order :8. the revision petition is allowed. the order of the magistrate is set aside. the case is remitted to the learned magistrate to proceed further in accordance with law.