Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
H.P.Sandesh, J.
The Divisional Manager National Insurnce Company Limited Dharwad, Through The Divisional Manger National Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Shankaramma W/o Iranna Kalagi - Respondent
M.F.A. NO.20003 of 2010 (WC)
Decided On : 09-09-2022
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 2(1)(n), 30, 4(1)(c)(ii) - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Insurance Company - Challenging Award - Whether in case of death of driver of a insured vehicle in non usage of vehicle at time of his death due to heart attack, it absolves liability of Insurance Company - Whether Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is justified in saddling liability upon appellant-insurer contrary to Post Mortem Report conducted by Doctor of Primary Health Centre which shows that heart of deceased was enlarged, there was a fatty deposition all over left ventricular wall - Whether Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is justified in fastening liability upon appellant-insurer when heart attack was not due to stress and strain factor of employment, but due to blockage of left coronary artery to extent of 80% - Whether Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is justified in saddling liability upon appellant-insurer although insured-owner has lodged complaint to police stating that deceased was addicted to alcohol and consuming everyday - Whether Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is justified in saddling liability upon appellant-insurer though policy has been issued under provisions Motor Vehicles Act and it must be incumbent that there must be a causal connection between death and use of vehicle. [Para 15]
Finding of the Court: Counsel for claimants relied upon Poonam Devi’s case and in said case driver loaded truck and he went to canal to bring water and in that circumstance he passed away - But claimants’ case stands in better footing than case of Poonam Devi as he was taking rest in very same vehicle parked near petrol bunk after work - Other judgement relied on by counsel for Insurance Company in Shakuntala’s case, no doubt, Apex Court held that there must be casual connection between accident and serious injury so as to fulfill requirements of terms out of employment – Court have already pointed out that it is specific claim of claimants before Commissioner that on account of stress involved in employment he died due to heart attack and nothing is placed before Court that there is no casual connection with cause of death and also his employment and taking of notional extension is to be considered while appreciating each facts and circumstances – Court have already pointed out that he died while he was sleeping in vehicle itself and fact that he was working in very same day with respondent No.1 is not in dispute and owner has also admitted that he was died during course of employment – Court have already pointed out that usage of vehicle does not mean that at time of his death he need not necessarily drive vehicle but in casual connection of his employment only he was sleeping in lorry and while taking rest he suffered heart attack and hence very contention of Insurance Company cannot be accepted that it is not liable to pay compensation - Hence point No.1 is answered in negative.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgement and award passed in WCA:F/109-A/2008 dated 20.08.2009, wherein liability is fastened on the Insurance Company by granting compensation of Rs.3,03,620/-with 12% interest.
2. Factual matrix of the case of the claimants before the Workmen’s Commissioner (for short, ‘Commissioner’) is that deceased Eranna was working as driver with respondent No.1 in respect of lorry bearing No.KA-19/B-1126 and he was taking rest near Idya village, Suratkal by halting in the said vehicle. He died due to cardiac arrest and hence the claimants being the legal representatives of said Eranna laid a claim before the Commissioner. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the vehicle admitted his employment and also admitted that during the course of employment Eranna died. Insurance Company has filed written statement denying the contents of the claim petition and contended that the deceased was not a workmen within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of Workmen’s Compensation Act and also denied his avocation, income and contended that it is clear that he died due to cardiac failure. Subsequently, Insurance Company got amended the written statement contending that he has died due to cardiac failure and not due to accidental death and he was taking intoxicated drugs, which is not covered under the policy and hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
3. Claimants in order to prove their case, examined one witness i.e. wife of deceased as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.7 and also examined one witness as P.W.2. On the other hand, insurance company examined branch manager as R.W.1 and policy was got marked as Ex.R.1.
4. The Commissioner after considering both the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition by granting compensation of Rs.3,03,620/-with 12% interest.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, Insurance Company is in appeal
by raising the following substantial questions of law:
2. Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is justified in fastening the liability upon the appellant-insurer when the heart attack was not due to the stress and strain factor of the employment, but due to the blockage of the left coronary artery to the extent of 80%.
3. Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is justified in saddling the liability upon the appellant-insurer although the insured-owner has lodged the complaint to the police stating that the deceased was addicted to alcohol and consuming everyday.
4. Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is justified in saddling the liability upon the appellant-insurer though the policy has been issued under the provisions Motor Vehicles Act and it must be incumbent that there must be a causal connection between the death and the use of the vehicle.
5. The judgment and order passed by the Commissioner is opposed to law, probabilities of the case and evidence on record.
6. No legal proceedings or litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject matter of the dispute is pending.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the death is on account of cardiac failure and the same is not a ground of usage of vehicle and Commissioner is not justified in saddling liability on the insurer. He also contended that the death was on account of blockage in the heart. The insured owner has
Under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, the percentage of permanent disability needs to be assessed only by a qualified medical practitioner.
Employer's liability to pay as per Commissioner's award and the same varied between wages actually drawn by deceased employee and wages shown by employer as payable to employee for purpose of payment....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the deceased's murder arose in the course of employment, attracting the provisions of the Employee Compensation Act, and that the insurance....
Workmen’s compensation - Natural death - Death by heart attack is an accident is well recognized.
The insurance company is liable for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act when an employee-employer relationship is established, regardless of the driver's licensing status or the nature ....
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
