AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—This appeal is against the award passed under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, hereinafter referred to as "W.C. Act". The insurer is the appellant. Very many substantial disputes were raised between the parties before the learned Commissioner. In our view, the relevant materials were kept away from consideration. The plea of the claimants appears to be that the driver of an autorickshaw died out of stress related cardiac arrest while loading materials into the autorickshaw. The question whether stress related cardiac arrest could be treated as an accident in the course of employment is relevant for decision. There is also some dispute as to whether the title to the autorickshaw was transferred before the accident and whether the insurance cover continued to subsist.
Looking at the manner in which the learned Commissioner has answered issues 1, 2 and 3, we cannot but say that the impugned order is cryptic and does not disclose any reason for the decision. The mere statement that "considering all the evidence adduced", "the deceased was a workman", cannot be sustained. The Commissioner is the authority to decide on facts and on law, though the procedure is summary. For this Court to decide as to whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration in an appeal from such order, the order should disclose reasons.
ESI Corporation''s case, 1996 ACJ 1281 (SC), lays down the principles and tests to be applied to attract the provisions of Section 3 of the W.C. Act. We reiterate those principles, which are as follows:
(1) There must be casual connection between the injury 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 facts of each case.
We do not find any consideration of the relevant facts and law, as also the materials brought on record. We are, therefore, compelled to vacate the impugned award and remit the matter for reconsideration.
The impugned adjudication and result do not reflect consideration of materials. Such orders tend to be arbitrary. They cannot stand in the eye of law.
For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the impugned award is vitiated by non-disclosure of reasons for issuing it. In the result, this appeal is allowed, vacating the impugned award and remitting W.C. Case No. 29 of 2004 to the W.C. Commissioner, Thrissur for fresh disposal in accordance with law. We leave it open to the Commissioner to fix a time limit. At any rate, let the award be passed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment or from the date of appearance of the parties, whichever is later. The parties are directed to mark appearance before the Commissioner on 10.08.2012. No costs.