Point of Law: Workmen compensation - Merely because death had taken place in course of employment does not necessarily lead to drawing of further inference that it is arising from employment - When there is a causal connection between death and employment that cause of action arises for award of compensation in this jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

This is insurer’s appeal calling in question the legality of the award dated 25.04.2013 in WCA SR No.117/2011 passed by the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub Division II, Belgaum (for short “the Commissioner”).

2. Brief facts are that one Santosh Shama Vittu Kolekar was working as a cleaner in lorry bearing registration No.MH07/793 owned by respondent No.1Sri. Gajanan Kashinath Mayekar and insured with the appellant herein. The claimants are parents and siblings of the deceased. It is stated that on 14.12.2009 while he was proceeding in the said truck, when he reached near Madhukol near Belagavi, he collapsed in the place where he was sitting in the lorry and when he was shifted to the hospital, the medical officer pronounced him dead.

3. During the claim proceedings, respondent No.1 insured filed his written statement admitting all the averments except the wages claimed by the claimants. Respondent No.2 filed its separate written statement and denied any liability to pay the compensation.

4. During the enquiry, claimant No.1 examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. Respondents got marked the policy of insurance as Ex.R2(1).

5. Upon consideration of the materials produced and evidence let in, learned Commissioner recorded a finding that employeremployee relationship between respondent No.1 and the deceased was established and further that the incident resulting in the death of the deceased had taken place in the course of and arising out of the employment. Learned Commissioner also recorded a finding that deceased was aged 19 years 10 months and he was earning Rs.4,000/by way of wages per month. By applying appropriate relevant factor, he awarded compensation of Rs.4,45,420/with interest thereon at 12% per annum.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellantinsurer vehemently contends that a substantial question of law arises for consideration. He submits that even though the deceased who was a cleaner had died in the lorry itself, the materials produced before the learned Commissioner would go to show that there is no causal connection between the death and the employment. In this connection, he drew my attention to Ex.P.5, which is the postmortem examination report, as per which death had taken place on account of respiratory failure due to massive pleural effusion suffered by the deceased. He, therefore, submits that the finding of the learned Commissioner is wholly illegal and it is liable to be interfered with. In this behalf, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 11 SCC 668 (Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another).

7. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants, on the other hand, submitted that the materials produced before the learned Commissioner clearly showed that deceased was proceeding in the lorry in which he was employed as a cleaner at the time of his death. He further submitted that on account of extreme stress attached to the work of a cleaner of lorry, deceased Santosh Kolekar had died by suffering massive pleural effusion and therefore, there is causal connection between the death of the deceased and his employment as a cleaner. In this behalf he places reliance on following decisions.

2010 (4) KCCR 3023 (M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaheeda Banu and others.

2013 ACJ 526 (Param Pal Singh vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. and another)

HCR 2019 Kant 234 (National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Smt.Renukamma)

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides and I have perused the records. There is no dispute about the fact that deceased Santosh Kolekar was working as a cleaner in lorry bearing registration No.MH07/793 owned by respondent No.1Ganajana Kashinath Mayekar and insured with appellantthe New India Assurance Company Limited. There is also no dispute about the fact that deceased had died on 14.12.2009 at about 8.45 p.m. while he was proceed