The court affirmed that an employee's death can be compensable if caused by stress related to employment, despite pre-existing health conditions.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 28.12.2023 in ECC No.1181 of 2016 (WCC No.37/12) of the Employees Compensation Commissioner (Industrial Tribunal), Thrissur. Appellant was the 2^nd opposite party in the ECC proceedings. Respondents 1 to 3 were the applicants and 4^th respondent is the 1^st opposite party in the said proceedings. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status before the Employees Compensation Commissioner (ECC).

2. On 09.09.2011, at about 2 P.M., Janardhanan, who was employed as a driver in an autorickshaw bearing number KL-8/F-5475, owned by the 1^st opposite party, felt discomfort and chest pain. He contacted the 1^st opposite party and sought permission to consult a doctor and take rest. However, the 1^st opposite party/ employer compelled the employee to continue his work till evening as there were no substitute drivers. Thus, while driving the auto rickshaw with passengers on board, Janardhanan collapsed, became unconscious and fell out of the moving vehicle. He was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Cherpu, where he was declared dead. The applicants who were the wife and children of late Janardhanan moved the ECC seeking compensation contending that he had died due to stress and strain of his employment, and that had the employer permitted him to consult a doctor and take rest, his life could have been saved. A crime was registered by Cherpu police with respect to the accident. Late Janardhanan was aged 53 years and was deriving a monthly wage of Rs.10,000/- at the time of the accident The applicants thus claimed a compensation of Rs.5,70,720/- from the opposite parties.

3. The 1^st opposite party remained absent before the ECC and he was set ex parte. The 2^nd opposite party/insurer contended that though they had issued a policy in favour of the 1^st opposite party covering the relevant vehicle for the relevant period, no intimation regarding the accident had been given to the insurer either by the 1^st opposite party or by the applicants. It was contended that there was no employer-employee relationship between the 1^st opposite party and the deceased and there was no causal connection between the death of the deceased and his employment. It was contended that the vehicle was not having a valid registration certificate, fitness certificate and permit as on the date of the accident. It was also contended that the deceased was not having a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. The age and wage of the deceased were also not admitted by the insurer. The 2^nd opposite party thus sought a dismissal of the application.

4. The ECC framed five issues and the parties proceeded to adduce evidence. AW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked from the side of the applicants. From the side of the 2^nd opposite party, Exts.R1 to R7 were marked. No witnesses were examined by the 2^nd opposite party.

5. The ECC after hearing the parties and considering the evidence allowed the application and held that the applicants are entitled to an amount of Rs.5,70,720/- towards compensation along with interest and cost. Rs.20,000/- was also awarded towards funeral expenses. It was found that the 1^st opposite party being the employer of the deceased was liable to pay the said amounts to the applicants and the 2^nd opposite party being the insurer was liable to indemnify the 1^st opposite party by virtue of the contract of insurance. The 2^nd opposite party was directed to deposit the amount awarded. Aggrieved by the said order of the ECC, the 2^nd opposite party has filed this appeal.

6. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal:

(i) Whether the Commissioner went wrong in holding that there is an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the 1^st opposite party?

(ii) Whether the Commissioner went wrong in holding that the deceased had an accidental death?

(iii) Whether the Commissioner went wrong in holding that the deceased died on account of the