The Commissioner's order awarding compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act was not sustainable in the eyes of law due to the failure to frame issues, consider evidence, and record specific findings on the jurisdictional point of whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant. On 15.06.2022 the matter was posted for 24.06.2022 on the request of the learned counsel for the respondents to enable him to advance his arguments. On 05.07.2022 also the matter was posted for 08.07.2022 for the arguments of the respondents’ counsel but on 08.07.2022 also none appeared to argue the matter on behalf of the respondents. The judgment was reserved.

2. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (The Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923) (in Short “E.C.Act”) has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager at Vijayawada challenging the award/order dated 05.05.2007 passed in W.C.No.6 of 2006 (Smt M. Laskhmi Ramateertham and others vs. M. Avulaiah and another) by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada, Krishna, (in short the Commissioner), by which W.C.No.6 of 2006 was allowed and opposite parties therein i.e the present appellant (Opposite Party No.2 in W.C.No.6 of 2006) and the 4th respondent (Opposite party No.1 in W.C.No.6 of 2006 were directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.3,33,034/- to the claimant/applicants i.e. the respondents 1 to 3, within a specified period.

3. Sri Venkata Subbiah husband of the first respondent Smt M. Lakshmi Ramateertham died on 15.08.2005. The respondents 1 to 3 filed W.C.No.6 of 2006 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada, claiming compensation against the lorry driver, 4th respondent and the New India Assurance Company appellant, on the ground that the husband of the first respondent while discharging his duties as driver, in the course of employment suffered stomach pain and was shifted to the hospital at Vijayawada where he died on 15.08.2005.

4. The claim was contested.

5. The appellant filed counter affidavit denying the allegations and putting the respondents in strict proof of the allegations.

6. The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit admitting the case of the claimants and submitting that on the date of the incident the vehicle was insured with the appellant and the policy was in force.

7. Before the Commissioner, the 1st respondent was examined as A.W.1 and the documents Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked.

8. The 4th respondent was examined as A.W.2 but no documents were marked.

9. The appellant reported no evidence.

10. The Commissioner allowed W.C.No.6 of 2006 for an amount of Rs.3,33,034/- vide award dated 05.05.2007.

11. The appeal was admitted by this Court on 07.06.2010.

12. The substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of appeal are as follows:

“i) Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct in view of the law laid down that the disease suffered by the workman should be related to the work done by him?

ii) Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct when the disease suffered by the workman does not fall under occupational disease as specified under Schedule-III of W.C. Act?”

13. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the disease, stomach pain suffered by the workman did not relate to the work done by him. The Ex.A.4 copy of postmortem report showed that the workman was suffering from chronic “Idiopathic Inflamatory Bowel disease”.

14. He further submitted that the said disease did not fall under the occupational disease specified in Schedule-III of the E.C. Act. The Commissioner did not record any finding on the essential points aforesaid nor the reasons for its conclusion under the award.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in the case of Mackinnon Machenzie and Co. (P) Ltd., vs. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak, 1969 (2) SCC 607 to contend that the burden of proof rests upon the workman to prove that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. There must be a casual relationship between the accident and the employment, but on this material aspect the award is silent.

16.