Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Pasupuleti Vijaya Lakshmi – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 75 of 2019
Decided on : 14-12-2023
Workmen’s Compensation Act - Death due to heart attack during employment - Section 30 - [WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT] - [Section 30] - The court discussed the applicability of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the legal provisions related to the liability of the employer in cases of death during employment. The court also considered the interpretation of 'stress and strain' as a cause of death and the burden of proof on the claimant to establish the causal connection between the employment and the death of the worker.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, a driver, suffered a heart attack during his employment and subsequently died. The claimant sought compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The appellant, the employer, denied the claim, arguing that the death was not due to accidental injuries and there was no evidence of stress and strain at the time of death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased died during the course of his employment and that the cause of death was proved. The court also noted the lack of evidence from the appellant to substantiate their case.
Issues: The issues included determining the status of the deceased as a workman, establishing the cause of death, and calculating the compensation amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of 'stress and strain' as a cause of death and the burden of proof on the claimant to establish the causal connection between the employment and the death of the worker. The court also emphasized the need for evidence to prove jurisdictional facts before granting compensation.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and directed the appellant to withdraw the deposited amount. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
The Appellant herein filed this Appeal under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, against the Order and Decree dated 15.09.2017 passed in W.C.No.14 of 2011 by the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Gudiwada, (in short ‘learned Tribunal’) whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a total compensation of Rs.3,38,880/- for the death of the deceased due to heart attack during the course of his employment.
2. The appellant herein is the 2nd opposite party; 1st respondent herein is the applicant; respondents 2 to 4 are the legal representatives of the deceased Nageswar Rao and 5th respondent herein is the 1st opposite party before the learned Tribunal.
3. The 1st respondent/applicant has filed a claim petition before the tribunal alleging that on 24.02.2010 the deceased workman as a driver, during the course of his employment, he was suffered stress and strain to unload the parcel and all of sudden the deceased was attacked with heart attack. As a result of which the workman shifted to the MKCG Government Hospital, Orissa for treatment, where the doctors are declared that the deceased was died on 26.02.2010. A case in Crime No.50 of 2010 was registered by Berhampur Police Station. Therefore, the 1st respondent approached the appellant/2nd opposite party and 5th respondent with a request to pay compensation, but in vain. Hence the applicant/1st respondent have approached the Tribunal.
4. The 2nd opposite party before the tribunal have filed counter denying all material allegations made in the claim petition and mainly contended that the death of deceased driver was not occurred due to accidental injuries, the alleged heart attack is not an accidental injury and there is no stress and strain at the time of death of the deceased. Therefore this appellant is not liable to indemnify the liability of the 5th respondent/2nd opposite party and that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues viz.,
2) Whether or not the deceased suffered with stress and strain before his death due to heart attack?
3) If so, what is the age and wage of the deceased at the time his death?
4) What is the quantum of amount of compensation that the applicants eligible?
6. During the course of trial, the 1st respondent was examined as AW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A8 and none examined on behalf of the appellant/2nd opposite party or 5th respondent/1st opposite party, but marked True copy of Policy as Ex.B1.
7. Learned Tribunal, after hearing on both sides passed an order holding that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 3,38,880/- to the applicant i.e 1st respondent. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed by the appellant/2nd opposite party.
8. Heard Mr. Krishnanand, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. S. Bala Mohan Ranga, learned Counsel for the respondents.
9. During hearing learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned Tribunal ought to have saddled the liability to pay compensation of Rs. 3,38,880/- to the 1st respondent. The court below failed to appreciate that no legal fiction can be raised that the deceased died of heart attack in the course of employment is attributable to the stress and strain during the course of his employment. The 1st respondent failed to establish that the death was caused by reason of failure of heart and is because of the stress and strain of the work. There is no medical evidence to prove the nature of death of the deceased. But the learned tribunal without considering these aspects and went wrong presumption that the deceased died of heart attack due to stress and strain, during
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the claimant to prove the causal connection between the employment and the death of the worker, as well as the need for evid....
The requirement for evidence of stress or strain causing death to grant compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to establish a proximate nexus between the death of a worker and the nature of their employment to determine liability for compensation....
The court confirmed that a work-related heart attack constitutes an accident under the Employees Compensation Act if stress from employment contributed to the health condition, validating claims for ....
The burden of proof lies on the dependents to establish the employee-employer relationship and causal connection between the work and the injury under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act requires establishing a direct causal link between employment and the injury or death, with the claimant bearing the burden of proof.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
