The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to establish a proximate nexus between the death of a worker and the nature of their employment to determine liability for compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an Appeal under Sec. 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 ('the Act') by the appellant-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. questioning the legality of the judgment rendered in FWCA No. 02 of 2004 on 19/07/2006 by Commissioner, under the Act, Bhandara directing the appellant and others jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,43,300.00 with interest @ 12% per annum from the date till due payment.

2. The applicant No.1 is widow of late Yogesh Gadhave, who was working with the non-applicant No.3 on the post of 'Tipper driver' on monthly salary of Rs.2500.00. Applicant No.2 is the son of applicant No.1.

3. According to applicant-wife, deceased workman was on duty on 15/09/2003 and at about 3-00 a.m. he expired in the premises of Sunflag factory. The work of deceased was to drive the Tipper to collect raw and finished material and to reach it to the different concerning department. On the day of incident due to stress and strain of work he suffered mental, physical and bodily strain and after vomiting blood from his mouth he died. This clearly was because of personal injury in incident arising out of and in course of employment and thus there is a casual connection between the employment and the death.

4. According to applicants, since they are dependent on the deceased-workman, therefore, they are entitled for the compensation amount of Rs.3,69,487.00 by way of compensation.

5. Non applicant Nos. 1 and 2 resisted the application by filing reply (Exh. 7-B) and denied that the death of the workman occurred due to bodily injury during the course of his employment. According to them, the postmortem report does not show any injury on the person of the deceased and no definite opinion has been given by the doctor, who conducted the postmortem. Therefore, the application filed by the applicants deserves to be dismissed with costs, concluded nonapplicants.

6. Non applicant No.4-Insurance Company also contested the application by filing its written statement (Exh. 23) and denied all the contentions raised in the application including the employment of the workman.

7. After hearing both the parties, the Commissioner directed nonapplicant Nos. 2 to 4 to pay the applicants jointly and severally in the sum of Rs.2,43,300.00. Therefore, the present Appeal.

8. Mr. Mirza, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the death occurred because of the injury sustained in and during the course of employment. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the postmortem report to substantiate his submission. According to learned Counsel, there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased-workman died due to heart attack and this being so the learned Commissioner was wrong in allowing the application. Learned Counsel placed reliance in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v/s. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Anr. AIR 2007 SC 248 , Jyothi Ademma v/s. Plant Engineer, Nellore and Anr. AIR 2006 SC 2830 and Smt. Ashabai Bhimrao Bomborde and Ors. v/s. The Divisional Controller First Appeal No. 497 of 2017 dtd. 22/01/2019 (Bombay High Court) .

9. Mr. Choudhari, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and order and also placed reliance in Mst. Param Pal Singh through father v/s M/s. National Insurance Co. and Anr. AIR 2013 Supreme Court 974 .

10. Sec. 3 of the Act carves out the circumstances under which the employer is liable for employees compensation. Sec. 3(1) reads thus:-

"Employer's liability for compensation

(1) If personal injury is caused to a employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:

Provided that the employer shall not be so liable-

(a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the employee for a period exceeding [three] days;

(b) in respect of any [inju