National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Tajinder Kour & Ors.

This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 612004 passed by Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, Jammu.(

hereinafter called the Act).

The controversy involved in this appeal is, as to whether the deceased who has died as a result of G.I. Bleeding, can be attributed to have been

caused during the course of his employment.

Brief facts of the case are that deceased Piara Singh was employed as driver of bus bearing Registration No. JKU1013 owned by respondent

The deceased died on 692001 in the Government Medical College, Jammu during the course of his employment with the aforesaid vehicle/bus.

It is alleged that the deceased while sitting on the driver's seat had developed severe pain in the stomach and became unconscious. The deceased

was rushed to the hospital for treatment. In spite of the best efforts of the doctors, the deceased died on the same day i.e. 692001 at about 6 P.M.

A claim petition came to be filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, stating therein that the deceased has died during the course of his

employment and the cause of death has nexus with the nature of employment. Respondent/appellant on the other hand, stated that admittedly the

deceased was a driver and the vehicle was insured with the appellant and it was clearly stated in the objections that there is no nexus with the

nature of employment and the cause of death.

Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Jammu after hearing the parties and recording the evidence, has passed an award dated 612004 for

Rs. 3,31,730/ under section 4 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accident. It is this

award, which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

6.1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Section 3 of the Act deals with the employer's liability for compensation. For facility of reference, relevant portion of the said section is

reproduced as under:

Employer's liability for compensation: (1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his

employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this chapter: Provided that the employer shall

not be so liable:

a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days;

b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death, or permanent total disablement caused by an accident which is directly attributable to:

i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or

ii) the willful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to rule expressly framed for the purpose of securing the safety of

workmen, or

iii) the willful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of

securing the safety of workman.

The essential ingredients of section 3(1) are that the injury must be caused by accident and in the course of employment. The tribunal below has

recorded the statements of witnesses examined by the claimants and the respondents. They have clearly stated that due to the stress of job, the

deceased has incurred the said disease. The witnesses stated that the deceased used to come at home once in a week on account of his stressful

job; as a result of which he incurred this disease. They disclosed that the deceased used to eat food outside at Dhabas, which became a cause of

the disease as a result of which he died. All the witnesses stated that because of the stress and pressure of the job, the deceased has incurred the

aforesaid disease. Dr. Rakesh Raina in his statement has shown cause of death as Upper G.I bleed, which can be caused and aggravated by the

stress and strain of the job. This being the position, it can safely be said that the disease was incurred by the deceased during the course of his

employment.

The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court titled Shankutla Chandrakant Shreshti Vs.

Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another reported in 2007 ACJ 1. The judgment states that without evidence, that death due to cardiac arrest has

occurred because of stress and strain, the Commissioner would not have jurisdiction to grant compensation. As already mentioned hereinabove,

the witnesses have clearly stated that on account of stress and strain relating to the job, the death of the deceased has been caused. The aforesaid

judgment would not apply in this case. There are sufficient facts on record to suggest that the disease was incurred by the deceased during the

course of his employment as driver of the vehicle.

9.1, therefore, hold that the court below has rightly awarded the compensation to the legal heirs of the respondents. The appeal is accordingly

dismissed.