Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
The New India Assurance Company Ltd represented by its Divisional Manager, Vijayawada – Appelant
Vs.
Kootam Venkateswaramma and Another – Respondent
C.M.A.No.85 of 2022
Decided on : 14-12-2023
Workmen’s Compensation Act - Death during employment - Section 30
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order granting compensation for the death of a driver during the course of his employment. The appellant contested the liability to pay compensation to the deceased's wife, the 1st respondent, based on the cause of death and the nature of the deceased's duties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased died due to a heart attack during the course of employment, attributing it to stress and strain. The court also considered the lack of medical evidence to prove the nature of death and the appellant's liability to pay compensation.
Issues: The issues included determining the deceased's status as a workman, the liability of the 2nd opposite party to pay compensation, the age and wage of the deceased, and the amount and due date of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 'Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Another' to establish the requirement for evidence of stress or strain causing the death in order to grant compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal. The appellant was entitled to withdraw the deposited amount, and any amounts withdrawn by the claimant would be recovered from the owner of the vehicle.
JUDGMENT :
1. The Appellant herein filed this Appeal under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, against the Order and Decree dated 25.11.2021 passed in W.C.No.2 of 2019 by the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada, (in short ‘learned Tribunal’) whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a total compensation of Rs. 5,70,720/- for the death of the deceased/driver during the course of his employment.
2. The appellant herein is the 2nd opposite party; 1st respondent herein is the applicant, who is wife of deceased Mr. Kootam Narasimha Rao and 2nd 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 the deceased workman as a driver, stopped lorry to attend natural call at 4.00 a.m on 03.12.2018 at Amalapuram, as the driver did not turn up in time, the cleaner went to enquire and found the driver fell on the ground unconscious condition. The cleaner sprayed some water with a bid to wake up, but in vain, suspecting the condition cleaner made a call to 108 Ambulance and they came to spot and declared dead after check up. A case in Crime No.154 of 2018 was registered by Allavaram Police Station. Therefore, the 1st respondent approached the appellant/2nd opposite party and 2nd respondent with a request to pay compensation, but in vain. Hence the applicant/1st respondent have approached the Tribunal.
4. The 1st respondent filed counter by admitting the employment of the deceased workman and he used to pay Rs. 12,000/- per month towards salary and Rs. 200/- per day towards batta. It is further stated that the deceased had valid driving license and the insurance at the time of the accident.
5. The 2nd opposite party before the tribunal have filed counter denying all material allegations made in the claim petition and mainly contended that they denied the employment and occurrence of the incident and the applicant has to show the proof for the dependency on the deceased workman. Therefore the claim is liable to be dismissed. Therefore this appellant is not liable to indemnify the liability of the 2nd respondent/1st opposite party and that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues viz.,
2) Whether or not the 2nd opposite party is liable to pay compensation amount as workman died with heart attack?
3) If so, what is the age and wage of the deceased at the time of his death?
4) What is the amount of compensation and from which date the compensation amount is due?
7. During the course of trial, the 1st respondent was examined as AW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A9 and the appellant/2nd opposite party examined as RW-1 and no documents were marked.
8. 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. 5,70,720/- 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.
9. Heard Mr. Naresh Byrapaneni, learned Counsel for the Appellant and none represented for the respondents.
10. During hearing learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned Tribunal ought to have saddled the liability to pay compensation of Rs. 5,70,720/- to the 1st respondent. The court below failed to appreciate that no legal fiction can be raised that the deceased died while attending calls of nature 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
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 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 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 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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'arising out of and in the course of employment' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the emphasis on a liberal....
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
