An employee's death due to chest pain and cardiac arrest while on duty is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the insurer is liable to pay compensation with interest at 12% per annum from the date of death.

JUDGMENT:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dharmavaram (hereinafter called as ‘the Commissioner’) in W.C.No.41 of 2005 dated 04.06.2009.

2. The insurer of the lorry bearing No.KA 01 D 1249 belonging to the 1st respondent herein is the appellant. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the parents and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are unmarried brother and sister of the deceased.

3. According to the respondent Nos.1 to 4/applicants, in the application before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation at Dharmavaram, the deceased was working as driver under the 5th respondent herein on monthly wages of Rs.4,500/- p.m. On 20.10.2003, the deceased was informed the applicants that he was attending the duty from Bangalore to Nagpur with load. While so, on 24.10.2003, when the lorry reached near Nagpur, suddenly the deceased stopped the lorry as severe chest pain started. Then the cleaner shifted him to Medical College Hospital, Nagpur and later he was died. As the deceased died during the course of employment, the applicants filed application under W.C. claiming compensation.

4. The respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein set ex parte.

5. Counter was filed by the insurer/appellant denying the liability stating that there is no employer and employee relationship; and that the deceased was not died during the course of employment; and that the vehicle was not insured with the appellant; and that the risk was not covered as no premium was paid for the coverage of paid driver and prays to dismiss the application.

6. The Commissioner settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

1. Whether the deceased was a work man as per the provisions of W.C.Act 1923 and he died arising out of and in the course of his employment?

2. Who are liable to pay compensation?

3. To what relief?

7. In the course of enquiry, AW.1 and AW.2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. On behalf of the appellant/insurer, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were marked.

8. On the material, the Commissioner held that the workman (driver) was died during and in the course of employment while discharging his duties for the benefit of respondent No.5 herein and as the policy was in force, at the time of accident, directed the appellant and respondent No.5 herein to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.3,65,290/- with interest 12% per annum from the date of death i.e., 25.10.2003 to till the date of realization of the compensation amount besides stamp duty Rs.731/-, by way of demand draft drawn in favour of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool, within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order and their liability is joint and several and further ordered that if they fails to deposit the compensation amount within the stipulated time, they shall be liable to pay penalty under Section 4(A)3 of the Act.

9. It is against the said order, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the insurer.

10. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Karibasaiah, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

11. Now, the following points arise for determination:

1. Whether there is any employer and employee relationship between insured and deceased, if so whether the order of the Commissioner is correct ?

2. Whether the death of deceased can be called as expected or designed event and not during and in the course of employment ?

3. Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct in making the appellant liable to pay compensation ?

4. Whether the insurer is liable to pay interest from the date of death of the deceased @ 12% per annum ?

5. To what relief ?

12. POINT No.1:

In order to decide the employer and employee relationship, the fact to be noticed is that the deceased L.Ershad Ahamad worked as a driver on lorry bearing No.KA 01 D 1249 under the employment of the 5th respondent herein and ge