The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Employees' Compensation Act in determining the cause of death in relation to employment and the computation of compensation.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘EC Act’) the appellant has assailed the order dated 24.07.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, in Case No. CECD/ED/29/2017/3183, vide which the claim petition of the respondent/claimant was allowed and the appellant was directed to deposit death compensation.

2. In the claim petition, it was claimed by the respondent that her husband viz. Rakesh Verma (deceased) was employed with the appellant. On account of his employment, he was required to travel outstation and conduct/arrange raids whenever he received any complaint against manufacturing of counterfeit goods. On 29.06.2017, the deceased had gone to Chandigarh for official work and on his way back, when the bus reached ISBT Kashmiri Gate, he fell while de-boarding. He was rushed to LNJP Hospital, where he expired during treatment on 03.07.2017. In the death summary, the cause of death was opined as sub arachnoid hemorrhage with intraparchchymal hemorrhage, which in absence of trauma is spontaneous in nature.

3. It was further claimed that the deceased was aged about 44 years at the time of the incident and was last drawing salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month. Reportedly, he was undergoing mental stress, even on the day of the incident, on account of the appellant denying incentive and travel allowance to him.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the death of the deceased having been spontaneous is not related to his employment and thus no compensation ought to have been awarded by the learned Commissioner. It was next contended that though the respondent had claimed of receiving a phone call from the deceased on 29.06.2017 in which the deceased had told her about the stress he was undergoing, the phone call was not proved on the record. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali, (2007) 11 SCC 668 and Dredging Corporation of India Limited v. P.K. Bhattacherjee, (2013) 10 SCC 224.

5. In the alternative, it was submitted that while awarding the compensation, the learned Commissioner failed to take note of the ex-gratia payment of Rs. 2,84,690/- which was made to the respondent (wife of the deceased) vide receipt dated 11.08.2017.

6. Per contra, Mr. D.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent, has supported the impugned order. It was submitted that the deceased was under lot of stress on account of stressful conditions of employment that were created by the appellant, which led to his death. It was further submitted that necessary pleadings in this regard were made in the claim petition. It was also submitted that though in the reply filed before the learned Commissioner, the appellant on the basis of said receipt dated 11.08.2017 had denied liability to pay any further amount, it cannot escape from its statutory liability. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Madras High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sumantari Bai & Anr. 2004 ACJ 1759.

7. A reading of the pleadings and the evidence placed on record would show that the respondent had specially stated in the claim petition that her husband being employed with the appellant was made to travel all over India. The appellant was initially given incentives and travelling allowance, the same were not paid over a long period of time. Though the deceased made repeated requests for release of incentives and travel allowance to the appellant's management, the same was deferred. Eventually, when the deceased expressed an inclination to leave the job,

8. Col. Subhash Chaudhary, the Country Head of the appellant, promised release of all the pending dues. The dues however, remain unpaid.