JUDGMENT :

1. These first appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 18.5.2010 passed by learned Commissioner under the Compensation Act, 1923 and Judge, First Labour Court at Nagpur in Application (WC/F) No.20/2006 whereby learned Commissioner granted compensation at the rate of Rs.3,12,940/- with interest to Smt.Laxmi wd/o Rajanna Kotpalliwar (claimant).

2. First Appel No.1063/2010 is filed by the Central Railway Nagpur. Whereas, First Appeal No.1180/2010 is filed by the claimant for grant of interest from the date of accident and 50% penalty in view of Section 4(a) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the said Act).

3. Facts in brief, necessary for disposal of appeals, are as under:

The claimant is the widow of Rajanna (deceased). The deceased was an employee of the Central Railway working as a Khalashi (helper) under the control and supervision of the Inspector of Works Department, Ajni in Nagpur Division. As per the contentions of the claimant, her husband had gone to Mumbai for official work on 3.8.2004 and while returning to Nagpur by Mumbai-Howrah Express on 8.8.2004, he died due to heart attack. The deceased had travelled from Nagpur-Mumbai-Nagpur. Thus, the deceased had sustained the heart attacked during the course and in the course of the employment and died due to the said heart attack. As the death of the deceased was caused during and in the course of the employment, she applied for grant of compensation vide letter dated 15.3.2005. However, the claim of the compensation was rejected by the Railway Administration. Thus, the claimant is entitled to receive the compensation as the death of the deceased is caused during and in the course of the employment.

4. In response to the Notice, the Railway Administration resisted the application moved by the claimant on the ground that the death of the deceased was natural death as he sustained the heart attack while travelling. There is no previous record to show that the deceased was suffering from any heart ailment and was under stress and, therefore, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation.

5. In support of the contentions, the claimant adduced her evidence before learned Commissioner. The Railway Administration has also adduced evidence in support of the contentions of the Railway Administration.

6. Learned Commissioner, after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the nature of the work and the hours of the work caused stress to the deceased and hence his death is caused and as such the claimant is entitled to receive the compensation on account of the death of her husband.

7. Heard learned counsel Shri N.P.Lambat for the Railway Administration and learned counsel Shri S.A.Kalbande for the claimant.

8. Learned counsel Shri N.P. Lambat for the Railway Administration submitted that the employment of the deceased with the Railway Administration is not disputed. There is no nexus between the cause of the death and nature of the employment of the deceased. The claimant has not adduced any evidence to show that the deceased had sustained heart attack due to the nature of work, he was performing, while he was returning from Mumbai to Nagpur. No previous medical record is adduced to show that the deceased was having heart ailment. As nexus between the nature of work and the death of the deceased itself is not proved, the claimant is not entitled to receive any compensation.

9. Per contra, learned counsel Shri S.A.Kalbande for the claimant submitted that the deceased was sent for official work to Mumbai. While returning from Mumbai to Nagpur, he had heart attack. Thus, the death of the deceased is caused during and in the course of the employment and, therefore, learned Commissioner had awarded the compensation which cannot be faulted with.

10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel Shri S.A.Kalbande for the claimant placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in the cases of :

(1) General