( 1 ) HEARD learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.

( 2 ) THE appellant insurance company has challenged the order passed by Workman Compensation Commissioner, Valsad in Workman Compensation (Fatal) Case No. 10 of 2000 Exh. 54 dated 8th August 2008. The Commissioner awarded Rs. 1,63,070/- with 6% interest w. e. f. 9th November 2000 in favour of claimants. It is necessary to note that commissioner had directed both respondents i. e. employer as well as insurance company to pay aforesaid amount to claimants.

( 3 ) LEARNED advocate Ms. Hina Desai raised contention that concerned employee died on 21st May 2000 being a natural death having cardiac arrest during recess time, therefore, it cannot consider to be an accident occurred during the course of employment. She also raised contention that postmortem report supported defence of insurance company where cause of death is mentioned being a natural death due to cardiac attack. She also raised contention that when employee died, at that occasion, he was not actually working in premises of employer, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to claimant. Before Commissioner, on behalf of insurance company, five decisions as referred at Page 14 have been cited in support of their contention. Except that, no other contention is raised by learned advocate Ms. Desai on behalf of appellant insurance company.

( 4 ) LEARNED advocate Ms. Anushree Kapadia appearing on behalf of respondents claimants submitted that on 21st May 2000, when employee Rameshbhai Ishwarbhai Patel was working in second shift, at that time, at about 8-00 pm to 9-00 pm, he died in accident, because, during recess period, he was taking rest on PVC/frp 6" diameter three pipes, meanwhile, he received electric shock and due to electric shock of 15% to 17% first degree burn found on body of deceased employee. Therefore, according to her submission, it is not a natural death, but, it was an accident occurred during the course of employment when workman was enjoying recess and taking rest on pipe where injury caused due to electric shock and due to that, it was resulted into a death of concerned employee. She also submitted that accident covered even internal injury to body of concerned employee. It is not necessary that there must be an injury of outside part of body. According to her submission, even heart attack is also considered to be an injury in body which can be considered to be an accident occurred during the course of employment. Therefore, according to her submission, Commissioner has rightly examined the matter. No evidence was led by insurance company before Commissioner and proved its defence and insurance policy was in existence which covered accidental period. Therefore, Commissioner has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court.

( 5 ) I have considered the submissions made by both the learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties and also perused the order passed by Commissioner. The claimant Madhuben widow of Rameshbhai Ishwarbhai Patel and children of deceased employee have filed claim petition before Commissioner under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. The concerned employee was working under control of respondent No. 1 contractor and he was working in respondent No. 2 ICI India Limited Company as a A. E. T. At the time of accident, his monthly salary was Rs. 2,148/ -. According to case of claimant, Rameshbhai was receiving burns injury on body during recess period from 8-00 pm to 9-00 pm on 21st May 2000. Immediately, he was shifted to hospital without informing police authorities and thereafter, he died due to said accident. Before Commissioner, respondent No. 1 had filed reply Exh. 20 denying averments made in claim petition.

( 6 ) ACCORDING to respondent No. 1, considering medical report, deceased was died due to natural death, but, facts are admitted by respondent No. 1 contractor. According to respondent No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document