IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Sec. 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the impugned order dtd. 16/6/2004 in W.C. No.17 of 2003 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour -II, Guntur.

2. Appellants herein were the applicants and the respondents were the Opposite Parties before the learned Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the learned Commissioner.

Case of Applicants:

3. Case of applicants is that, the deceased Suram Koteswara Rao is the husband of the 1st Applicant and Applicants 2 & 3 are the son and daughter of the deceased. Deceased worked as a lorry driver under the O.P. No.1 and died due to cardiac arrest on 1/12/2002. O.P. No.1 is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 7T 1774 and the said vehicle is insured with O.P. No.2. On 27/11/2002, the deceased being the driver of the said lorry, left to Ahmedabad to unload chillies and reached Ahmedabad on 30/11/2002. While so, on the same night, he suffered with chest pain due to stress and strain and immediately got admitted into a private hospital by name Anand Hospital, Ahmedabad. Later, he got shifted to Government Hospital, Ahmedabad for better treatment, but he died on 1/12/2002 due to cardiac arrest. The deceased was aged about 46 years and was getting Rs.4000.00 as salary besides batta of Rs.500.00 to Rs.600.00 per month. Contention of the Opposite Parties:

4. The owner of the lorry admitted before the learned Commissioner that, the deceased worked as driver under him and he used to get Rs.4000.00 per month as salary. The vehicle is insured with O.P. No.2 under policy which is valid from 8/12/2001 to 17/12/2002 and prays for dismissal of the case against him. O.P. No.2 being the insurance company denied the case of the applicants including the age, wage, employee-employer relationship with O.P. No.1. The amount of compensation claimed is excessive. O.P. No.1 violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The cause of the death does not satisfy the ingredients of Sec. 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'W.C. Act'). Hence, sought for dismissal of the case.

5. Issues - Enquiry - Finding:

A. Basing on the rival pleadings of both sides, the learned Commissioner framed the following issues for adjudication;

1. Whether the deceased died due to stress and strain while he was on duty or not ?

2. What is the age of deceased and wages drawn by him at the time of death ?

3. Amount of compensation payable to applicants and who are liable to pay ?

B.During the course of enquiry, the 1st applicant who is the wife of the deceased was examined as AW.1 and O.P. No.1 is examined as AW.2. Exs.A1 to A8 were the documents marked. On behalf of O.P. No.2, no evidence is adduced.

C.After hearing both the counsel and on appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Commissioner came to conclusion that, the trip sheet filed is not a believable document to prove that the deceased was on duty on the date of his death. No FIR registered in this case, no inquest report is filed and there are corrections in the place of name in Ex.A3 - Medical Report. Ex.A4 - Death Certificate also does not disclose the name of the deceased. Ultimately, the learned Commissioner found that it is a false case, accordingly, dismissed the petition without costs.

6. Grounds of Apeal:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order impugned, the applicants preferred the present appeal on the following grounds.

a) The learned Commissioner failed to appreciate that the workman died arising out of and in the course of employment while performing the duties relating to the employment, he died.

b) The Opposite Party No.1 admitted that the deceased died during the course of employment.

c) The deceased died due to stress and strain while discharging his duties as a driver.

d) Non reporting the matter to the police cannot be detrimental to the case of the applicants