The central legal point established is that compensation can be awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Act even if there is no direct connection between the cause of death and the nature of duties, and even if the injury contributed to accelerating the death.

V.B. Gupta, J.

New India Assurance Company, the appellant has filed present appeal u/s 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short as "Act") against order dated 13th August, 2008, passed by Commissioner Workmen Compensation (for short as "Commissioner"), vide which claim filed by respondents No. 1 to 3, legal heirs of deceased, Subhash Chander Sharma, was allowed and they were awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,28,376/-.

2. Brief facts are that, deceased-Subhash Chander Sharma was employed as driver on the vehicle of respondent No. 4. On 9th September, 2003, while on duty, deceased was going from Peera Garhi to Palam Gaon. On way, there was some defect in the vehicle and deceased was trying to lookout it. All of sudden, another vehicle hit him from behind, with the result he sustained grievous injuries on his body. Due to impact, his chest and backbone was fractured. He was rushed to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and thereafter remained in other hospitals. FIR was registered on 10th September, 2003 and deceased died on 17th July, 2005.

3. Appellant in its reply took the plea that, deceased did not died of alleged accidental injuries. There is no nexus between accident and cause of death. None of the medical record provided by claimants suggest patient died due to accidental injuries. That is why they did not file postmortem report of deceased, which would have conclusively established as to for what reason death has taken place; whether it was due to accidental injuries or some other disease that deceased was already suffering.

4. Respondent No. 4, in written statement took the plea, that accident took place on 9th September, 2003 while, deceased died in 2006 i.e. after lapse of about four years. Thus, there is no nexus between incident and death of deceased.

5. Other plea is that, it is a Motor Accident Case and accident took due to rash and negligent driving of driver. Claimants concealed material facts from the Court, since they had already filed a case before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (for short as "Tribunal").

6. Learned Counsel for appellant argued that compensation awarded by Commissioner for injuries is illegal and unjustified in absence of proof of nexus between death of deceased and accidental injuries.

7. It is also contended that no compensation is payable as death has been caused due to cancer which was diagnosed on 4th October, 2004 by Doctor who was treating the deceased and not due to injuries sustained in accident. This petition is also not maintainable as petition for same cause has already been dismissed by Tribunal.

8. Lastly, it is contended that Commissioner wrongly granted compensation for disability in absence of any disability certificate.

9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for claimants contended that claim petition filed before Tribunal was not persued. Accordingly, present petition is maintainable.

10. Other contention is that, as per opinion given by Dr.V.K. Jain on 15th January, 2004, the workman was fit for "desk work". Later on, cancer was diagnosed on 14th October, 2004. As per opinion of Dr. V.K. Jain, deceased was fit for desk job and was not fit for driving. When a person is not capable of doing the same work for which he was capable, he is entitled to compensation. On this point, learned Counsel for claimants referred to Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Subata and Anr. 1976 ACJ 1941, in which it was observed.

It has not been disputed before us that the injury was of such nature as to cause permanent disablement to the respondent, and the question for consideration is that whether the disablement incapacitated the respondent for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. The Commissioner has examined the question and recorded in finding as follows:

The injured workman in this case is carpenter by profession.... By loss of the left hand above the elbow, he has evidently been rendered unfit for the work of carpenter as the work of carpentry cannot be done by