Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 622 (AP)

Suram Rajamma v. Kurra Venkaiah

2023-03-21

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Sec. 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the impugned order dtd. 16/6/2004 in W.C. No.17 of 2003 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour -II, Guntur. 2. Appellants herein were the applicants and the respondents were the Opposite Parties before the learned Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the learned Commissioner. Case of Applicants: 3. Case of applicants is that, the deceased Suram Koteswara Rao is the husband of the 1st Applicant and Applicants 2 & 3 are the son and daughter of the deceased. Deceased worked as a lorry driver under the O.P. No.1 and died due to cardiac arrest on 1/12/2002. O.P. No.1 is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 7T 1774 and the said vehicle is insured with O.P. No.2. On 27/11/2002, the deceased being the driver of the said lorry, left to Ahmedabad to unload chillies and reached Ahmedabad on 30/11/2002. While so, on the same night, he suffered with chest pain due to stress and strain and immediately got admitted into a private hospital by name Anand Hospital, Ahmedabad. Later, he got shifted to Government Hospital, Ahmedabad for better treatment, but he died on 1/12/2002 due to cardiac arrest. The deceased was aged about 46 years and was getting Rs.4000.00 as salary besides batta of Rs.500.00 to Rs.600.00 per month. Contention of the Opposite Parties: 4. The owner of the lorry admitted before the learned Commissioner that, the deceased worked as driver under him and he used to get Rs.4000.00 per month as salary. The vehicle is insured with O.P. No.2 under policy which is valid from 8/12/2001 to 17/12/2002 and prays for dismissal of the case against him. O.P. No.2 being the insurance company denied the case of the applicants including the age, wage, employee-employer relationship with O.P. No.1. The amount of compensation claimed is excessive. O.P. No.1 violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The cause of the death does not satisfy the ingredients of Sec. 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'W.C. Act'). Hence, sought for dismissal of the case. 5. Issues - Enquiry - Finding: A. Basing on the rival pleadings of both sides, the learned Commissioner framed the following issues for adjudication; 1. The cause of the death does not satisfy the ingredients of Sec. 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'W.C. Act'). Hence, sought for dismissal of the case. 5. Issues - Enquiry - Finding: A. Basing on the rival pleadings of both sides, the learned Commissioner framed the following issues for adjudication; 1. Whether the deceased died due to stress and strain while he was on duty or not ? 2. What is the age of deceased and wages drawn by him at the time of death ? 3. Amount of compensation payable to applicants and who are liable to pay ? B.During the course of enquiry, the 1st applicant who is the wife of the deceased was examined as AW.1 and O.P. No.1 is examined as AW.2. Exs.A1 to A8 were the documents marked. On behalf of O.P. No.2, no evidence is adduced. C.After hearing both the counsel and on appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Commissioner came to conclusion that, the trip sheet filed is not a believable document to prove that the deceased was on duty on the date of his death. No FIR registered in this case, no inquest report is filed and there are corrections in the place of name in Ex.A3 - Medical Report. Ex.A4 - Death Certificate also does not disclose the name of the deceased. Ultimately, the learned Commissioner found that it is a false case, accordingly, dismissed the petition without costs. 6. Grounds of Apeal: Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order impugned, the applicants preferred the present appeal on the following grounds. a) The learned Commissioner failed to appreciate that the workman died arising out of and in the course of employment while performing the duties relating to the employment, he died. b) The Opposite Party No.1 admitted that the deceased died during the course of employment. c) The deceased died due to stress and strain while discharging his duties as a driver. d) Non reporting the matter to the police cannot be detrimental to the case of the applicants. e) The learned Commissioner while dealing with the matter, lost sight of the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act which are beneficial piece of legislation. f) The death certificate clearly shows the name of the deceased. 7. d) Non reporting the matter to the police cannot be detrimental to the case of the applicants. e) The learned Commissioner while dealing with the matter, lost sight of the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act which are beneficial piece of legislation. f) The death certificate clearly shows the name of the deceased. 7. Substantial questions of Law: The following substantial questions of law arise in this Appeal; a. Whether the order passed by the learned Commissioner is in conformity with Sec. 3 of the W.C. Act? b. Whether the learned Commissioner can ignore the admissions made by the owner of the vehicle with regard to the employment, in the absence of any material on record? 8. Heard. Perused the material on record. Analysis of the Court 9. The core contention of the applicants is that the death of the workman took place arising out of and in the course of employment while performing the duties relating to the employment. Primarily, Sec. 3 of the Workmen Compensation Act provides that if a personal injury is caused to workmen by accident arising out of and in course of his employment, the employer shall liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions. Vide catena of decisions, ingredients essential to succeed in a claim may be summed up as follows; a. Existence of employee-employer relationship; b. Accident to arise out of and in the course of employment; c. Causal connection between the work, accident, and the injury; d. Policy issued by the insurer covers the risks of the workman in question. 10. The complexity comes in the interpretation of what amounts to "arise out of and in the course of employment". A Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and Another Vs. Francis De Costa and another, 1996 (6) SCC 1 referred to the decision in Dover Navigation Company Limited v. Isabella Craig,1940 A.C 190 , which held thus; "Nothing could be simpler than the words" arising out of and in the course of the employment." It is clear that there are two conditions to be fulfilled. What arise "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. What arise "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 occur 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 Sec. imports a distinction which it does not define. The language is simple and unqualified." 11. The burden is on the applicants, who are the dependents of the deceased, to prove that there existed an employee-employer relationship between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle, the death occurred arising out and in course of the employment and that there exists a casual connection between the injury and the employment. 12. Coming to the case on hand, it is a specific contention of the insurance company that the cause of death does not fall under the Sec. 3 of the W.C. Act. No doubt, it is elicited that the accident occurred while the deceased was at Ahmedabad as a driver of the lorry. Employer is not disputing the status of the deceased worked under him. The evidence of AW.1 coupled with Exs.A3, A4 would show that the deceased suffered from illness and approached the Doctor. Ex.A2 - Driving License of the deceased supports the case of the claimants that he was a driver. After the death of the deceased, the claimants got issued Ex.A5 - Legal Notice, acknowledgements were Exs.A6 & A7. AW.1 stated that, they have not given any information to the police. 13. The owner of the vehicle deposed that the deceased worked as driver to his lorry, his name was mentioned in the trip sheet, that he came to know through lorry broker office about the death of the deceased and the same is informed to his wife and others. His dead body was cremated at Ahmedabad. Admittedly, O.P. No.1 did not issue any reply notice to the notice issued by the applicants. O.P. No.1 completely supported the version of the claimants. 14. His dead body was cremated at Ahmedabad. Admittedly, O.P. No.1 did not issue any reply notice to the notice issued by the applicants. O.P. No.1 completely supported the version of the claimants. 14. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner concluded that, 'though the Ex.M1 proves that the deceased was workman under O.P.No.1, applicants/O.P. No.1 are not able to prove the workman was on duty on the date of death. The Learned Commissioner observed that in the Trip Sheet, Page No.46, particulars were noted with a Carbon Paper, in its original, numerous corrections were made and that all other original trip sheets in the same trip sheet book were written by pen without using the carbon paper. Hence, it is not a valuable / believable document to prove that the deceased was on duty on the date of his death. No Police Report was recorded and also there is no FIR filed in this case. No Inquest Report was filed by the applicants. In the copy of the Medical Record i.e. Ex.A3 name of the deceased was not noted and there are corrections, strikeouts in the name place. Even in the death certificate i.e. in Ex.A4 also, name of the deceased was not noted. Hence, the learned Commissioner strongly believed that it is a false case, and the applicants and the O.P. No.1 colluded and filed the claim application to get the compensation from O.P. No.2. In the light of the infirmities referred to supra by the learned Commissioner, he dismissed the application without costs. 15. A perusal of Sec. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act makes it clear that the scope for entertaining an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner is very limited and is restricted to those that are provided in the clauses (a) to (e). Further, it clearly provides the appeal can be entertained only where substantial questions of law are involved. In Golla Rajanna and others v. Divisional Manager & Another, (2017) 1 SCC 45 , wherein the High Court substituted its views and reduced the compensation drastically in the absence of any substantial questions of law, the Hon'ble Apex Court while referring to the Sec. 30 of the Act observed as follows; "10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to subs 16. Admittedly, the applicants did not choose to examine any Doctor to prove the contention that the deceased died due to stress and strain. No inquest report, no post mortem examination much less FIR was filed in this case. As such, the burden lies on the claimants to prove that there is casual connection between the employment and the death of the deceased. As parties failed to prove existence of the employee-employer relationship, the learned Commissioner rightly dismissed the petition. Even assuming for a moment that the existence of employee and employer relationship is proved by the admission made by the owner, no iota of evidence is placed before this Court or before the learned Commissioner to prove that due to stress and strain, the incident occurred while he was on duty. In such a case, this Court while sitting in appeal under Sec. 30 cannot go into a fact-finding mode due to the limitation prescribed. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity to interfere in the impugned order of the learned Commissioner. 17. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, both parties shall bear their own costs. Pending Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.