Causal connection between the cause of death and the nature of employment is essential for granting compensation under the Employees Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT

R. G. avachat, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appeal is taken up for final hearing at admission stage with their consent.

This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation act, 1923 (for short E.C. act). The challenge herein is to the order dated 16/10/2020, passed in W.C.F.a. No.6/2016, granting compensation to the respondents No.1 to 3 herein on account of death arising out of injury caused to late Ravindra by accident, arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent No.4, Director of Health Services. The order impugned herein reads thus :

'1) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall jointly and severally pay the compensation of Rs.5,52,510/-(Rupees Five lakh Fifty Two thousand five hundred ten only) to the petitioners, within two months from the date of this order. In case of default, amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the petition till its complete realisation.

2) The respondent No.1 shall pay 50% penalty i.e. Rs.2,76,255/- (Rupees Two lakh Seventy Six thousand two hundred fifty five only) and interest at the rate of 12% thereon from the date of incident, till filing of the petition to the petitioners.

3) ......'

The appellant was the respondent No.1 before the Commissioner under E.C. act, who has passed the impugned order.

2. It is the case of the respondents No.1 to 3 (legal representatives of the deceased) that the deceased Ravindra was in service with the respondent No.4 as a Driver. He would drive an ambulance, No.MH-14-CL-896. He was on duty on 24/10/2014. One Chandrakant Mukhmale was to succeed him on duty for the day. The duty hours of the deceased, however, were not over. For some work, the deceased wanted to visit his own residence. He, therefore, borrowed the motorbike of his colleague and started thereon. The motorbike ridden by the deceased hit the roadside stone on way. as a result, the deceased suffered multiple injuries and succumbed thereto.

3. The L.Rs. of the deceased moved the application for compensation against the respondent No.4 employer and the insurer of the ambulance (appellant herein). It is their case that, the deceased was paid a monthly salary of Rs.6000/-. His death occurred as a result of injuries suffered in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

4. The respondent No.4 - employer did not file its written statement nor has participated in the proceedings. The appellant Insurance Company contested the claim, disputing almost all the averments in the application.

5. The Tribunal, on appreciating the evidence in the case, allowed the application in terms of the order stated herinabove.

6. The substantial question of law involved in this appeal is as under :

Whether the deceased Ravindra died of the injuries suffered in the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment even without there being involvement of the ambulance ?

7. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would submit that, the evidence on record undoubtedly suggests that the deceased was on his way home post his duty hours were over. Statement of the widow of the deceased reinforces the same. according to learned counsel, there is no causal connection between the cause of death and employment of the deceased. Learned counsel has relied on the following authorities to ultimately submitting for allowing the appeal :

1. Mamtaj Bi Bapusab Nadaf & ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company & ors. [ (2010) 10 SCC 536 ]

2. General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay Vs. agnes [ aIR 1964 SC 193 ]

8. Learned counsel for the L.Rs. of the deceased would, on the other hand, submit that, the respondent No.4 employer did not participate in the proceedings. as such, the case of the L.Rs. that the deceased was on duty and succumbed to the injuries caused in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment went unchallenged. The widow of the deceased gave her oral evidence consistent with the