Durbshan B. Curseetjees Sons vs D. Sesharathnam

K. Ramaswamy, J.—One D. Narayana Rao, foreman supervisor in the ship belonging to the Appellant sustained head injuries on May 1, 1976. He was admitted in the Government General Hospital at Kakinada. He was treated till May 6, 1976. Thereafter, he was discharged. He was under rest upto 15.5.1976 and then he joined duty. While on duty in the high seas he died. Then the dead body was brought to shore and was handed over to the Respondent. Subsequently she laid the claim u/s 10 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ''the Act''). The competent authority awarded compensation of Rs. 23,100/-.

The Appellant resisted the claim contending that firstly, he did not die due to any accident. He sustained fits and as a result, he died natural death. Therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation. Secondly, it is contended that he is only a casual worker under a contractor and the Appellant is not liable. Thirdly, it is contended that there is no medical evidence connecting the cause of the death to the previous accident. Unless it is conclusively established that the death was the result of the injury to the head sustained by Narayana Rao on May 1, 1976, it cannot be said that he died during the course of the employment. All the three contentions were negatived by the original authority and the same have been repeated before me by Mr. Panduranga Rao, the learned Counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Y. Sivarama Sastry, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, contended that the fact that the deceased Narayana Rao sustained head injuries in an accident that occurred on May 1, 1976 is an admitted fact. Thereafter, he joined duty and he died while on duty in the high seas and the dead body was brought to the shore and was handed over to the Respondent. Therefore, the deceased Narayana Rao died while on duty. The lower court has drawn the inference from those facts and the lower court is well justified. He further contended that the Appellant is the principal employer and therefore, he is liable to pay the compensation. With regard to the quantum also, the lower court has taken all the factors into consideration and awarded compensation. Therefore, this is not a case for interference.

Upon these rival contentions, the questions that arise for consideration are:

(1) Whether the Appellant is an employer of the deceased Narayana Rao?

(2) Whether the deceased Narayana Rao died due to the accident since admittedly he was on duty?

It is true that some evidence was led to establish that the deceased was working with a sub-contractor. But under the Act, the principal employer is primarily liable and that legal position is not disputed. Therefore, the Appellant, being the principal employer, is liable to pay compensation if it is held that Narayana Rao died due to the accident while on duty. The fact that he died on duty is admitted. The only question is whether he died due to the accident. It is admitted that Narayana Rao sustained head injuries in an accident occurred on May 1, 1976 and he was treated for those injuries and thereafter, he took some rest and joined duty. The question is whether he died as a result of the earlier injuries sustained by him? The finding of the lower authority is that the earlier accident has contributed to accelerating his death due to the stress and strain in the rush of work. Therefore, it must be held that the deceased died due to the accident occurred on May 1, 1976. In a given case where medical evidence is adduced and an inference cannot be drawn that he died due to the accident the claimant is not entitled to compensation. But each case has to be considered on its own facts and circumstances. In this case, admittedly the deceased sustained head injuries in an accident while on duty. He underwent treatment. Subsequently, he joined duty. While on duty, he died. It is also in evidence that the work he discharges causes stress and strain. It is now well settled that the injury sustained in an accident may accelerate or contribute to the disablement causing even the death even after a lapse of some period In this case, the court below has drawn, in my view, quite rightly an inference that the stress and strain in the rush of work must have accelerated the cause of the death due to the accident which occurred earlier. This inference drawn by the Tribunal below cannot be said to be unwarranted on the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, I hold that the death has occurred while the deceased Narayana Rao was on duty due to the accident and therefore, the Respondent is entitled to compensation. Even with regard to the quantum of compensation, though an attempt has been made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the fixation of the wages is not based on acceptable evidence, I am unable to agree with him. It is the duty of the Appellant to place the record (Sic. of wages on) evidence and it was not placed. Therefore, the court below considered the evidence on record and concluded the wages to be Rs. 20.50 per day. On that basis, it was computed. The computed amount worked out at Rs. 23.100/- as per Section 4 read with Schedule IV of the Act. Therefore, the computation is also perfectly legal. It does not warrant interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.