2006 Supreme(SC) 1105

2006(9) Supreme 147
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ.
Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti - Appellant
versus
Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4778 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19222 of 2005)
Decided on 10-11-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Girish Ananthamurthy and P.P. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Kiran Suri, K.L. Nandwani, S.K. Mishra and Debasis Misra, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
To bring an accident injury during employment within Section 3 of Workmen’s Compensation Act there must be a causal connection between injury and the accident and the work done in course of employment.

Headnote:(i) Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 3 - Accident injury during the course of and out of employment - Deceased working as cleaner in vehicle while travelling in it suddenly developed chest pain and died - Autopsy showed cause of death as cardiac arrest due to Rupture Aortic Aneurysm - Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation allowed the claim petition filed by appellant, mother of deceased - High Court set aside the award opining that findings of workmen’s compensation were perverse and inconsistent - Appeal - There must be some evidence that employment contributed to death of deceased - There must be a causal connection between injury and accident and the accident and work done in course of employment - Only because a death had taken place in course of employment will not amount to accident - Deceased was travelling in vehicle by itself could not give rise to inference that job was strenuous - Stress and strain resulting in sudden heart failure would not be presumed - Commissioner did not go into jurisdictional facts and did not arrive at finding based on legal evidence in regard to causal connection between employment and death - No interference was warranted.

       Held : The said Act was enacted to provide for payment by certain classes of employers to workmen for compensation against injury by accident. The term `accidental injury has not been defined under the Act. The liability of the employer for payment of compensation, however, would arise if a personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. What is necessary for attracting the charging provision contained in Section 3 of the Act is that (i) an injury must be caused to a workman; (ii) such injury must have been caused by an accident; and (iii) it arose out of or in the course of his employment. (Para 15)

       Before we analyze the provisions of the Act, we may notice that in the Complaint Petition, there was no allegation that (i) the deceased met with his death by reason of any strain of work; and (ii) Appellant had no personal knowledge as regards quantum of or nature of work required to be performed by the deceased; and (iii) as to how service strain during his services was caused. (Para 16)

       The deceased had admittedly suffered a massive heart attack. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the heart attack was caused while doing any job. Even according to employer, he at the relevant time was merely getting down from the vehicle. (Para 17)

       The driver of the vehicle who was brother of the deceased was the best witness to state as to under what circumstances the deceased met with his death or whether the death was occurred due to some strain. He did not examine himself. The doctor who performed post mortem examination was also not examined. (Para 18)

       Sufferance of heart disease amongst young persons is not unknown. A disease of heart may remain undetected. A person may suffer mild heart attack but he may not feel any pain. There must, thus, be some evidence that the employment contributed to the death of the deceased. It is required to be established that the death occurred during the course of employment. (Para 19)

       Injury suffered should be a physiological injury. Accident, ordinarily, would have to be understood as unforeseen or uncomprehended or could not be foreseen or comprehended. A finding of fact, thus, has to be arrived at, inter alia, having regard to the nature of the work and the situation in which the deceased was placed. (Para 25)

       There is a crucial link between the causal connections of employment with death. Such a link with evidence cannot be a matter of surmise or conjecture. If a finding is arrived at without pleading or legal evidence the statutory authority will commit a jurisdictional error while exercising jurisdiction. (Para 26)

       An accident may lead to death but that an accident had taken place must be proved. Only because a death has taken place in course of employment will not amount to accident. In other words, death must arise out of accident. There is no presumption that an accident had occurred.(Para 27)

       The deceased was traveling in a vehicle. The same by itself can not give rise to an inference that the job was strenuous. (Para 29)

       Only because a person dies of heart attack, the same does not give rise to automatic presumption that the same was by way of accident. A person may be suffering from a heart disease although he may not be aware of the same. Medical opinion will be of relevance providing guidance to court in this behalf. (Para 30)

       Circumstances must exist to establish that death was caused by reason of failure of heart was because of stress and strain of work. Stress and strain resulting in a sudden heart failure in a case of the present nature would not be presumed. No legal fiction therefor can be raised. As a person suffering from a heart disease may not be aware thereof, medical opinion therefore would be of relevance. Each case, therefore, has to be considered on its own fact and no hard and fast rule can be laid down therefor. (Para 31)

       Only because the cause of death was due to heart attack, the same by itself may not be a ground to arrive at a conclusion that an accident had occurred resulting in injury. The nature of duty of the deceased was that of a helper. Per se that the duties would not be such which could cause stress or strain. If an additional duty were required to be performed by him, the same was required to be clearly stated. Unless evidence is brought on record to elaborate that the death by way of cardiac arrest has occurred because of stress or strain, the Commissioner would not have jurisdiction to grant damages. In other words, the claimant was bound to prove jurisdictional fact before the Commissioner. Unless such jurisdictional facts are found, the Commissioner will have no jurisdiction to pass an order.(Paras 38 to 40)

       We, therefore, are of the opinion that ultimate conclusion of the High Court may be correct. We although would not, thus, interfere with the impugned judgment, but would direct that in event any amount has been paid to Appellant the same need not be refunded.(Para 46)

       (ii) Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 30 - Appeal if substantial question of law was involved - A finding of fact arrived at without there being any evidence would give rise to a substantial question of law.

       Held : Section 30 of the said Act postulates an appeal directly to High Court if a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. A jurisdictional question will involve a substantial question of law. A finding of fact arrived at without there being any evidence would also give rise to a substantial question of law. From the order passed by the Commissioner, it appears, he has not arrived at a finding that the job involved any stress or strain. It was merely stated that he was working as a Khalasi in a truck which was going to Tavarewadi Village from Kolhapur to get the milk. The autopsy was conducted at Chandgad District Hospital. The driver Prashant Chandrakant Shreshti admittedly brought him to hospital. He was his brother. The post mortem examination commenced from 6.30 a.m. on 28.9.2002 and ended at 7.30 a.m. on the same day. From the post mortem report, it appears that in the accompanying report, it is stated that the death was due to sudden heart attack. When exactly the death took place is not known. It will bear repetition to state that under what circumstances the death took place is also not known. There was also no pleading in this behalf. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that the death took place during the course of the employment but then no evidence has been brought on record to show that it had a causal connection between accident and serious injury so as to fulfill the requirements of the terms "out of employment". Indisputably, there has to be an proximate nexus between cause of death and employment. A stray statement made by Appellant that the deceased had died while working in the vehicle and stress or strain of the work did not appear to have any foundation.(Paras 41 & 42)