Back
2009 Supreme(HP) 750
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Hon'ble Judges: Deepak Gupta, J.
Ram Dev Puri – Appellants
Vs.
Trishla Devi and Ors. – Respondent
Decided On: 03.09.2009
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish a causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment under Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the onus on the claimants to demonstrate the contribution of work and resulting strain to the injury.
Headnote:
Workmen's Compensation Act - Jurisdictional Question - Section 3(1), Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore and Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 513, Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali, (2007) 11 SC 668, Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. JT 2009 (2) SC 396 - The judgment discusses the jurisdictional question under Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the requirement to establish a causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment. It highlights the principles laid down in the mentioned cases, emphasizing the need for evidence to show that the death was caused by the stress and strain arising during the course of employment or had any connection with the employment. The court held that the onus is upon the claimants to demonstrate the contribution of work and resulting strain to the injury, and without such evidence, the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation lacked jurisdiction to pass an award.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants, widow and minor children of Sukh Chain Singh, filed a claim petition under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, alleging that Sukh Chain Singh died during the course of employment as a driver. The employer and the Insurance Company denied the claim, leading to a dispute over the cause of death and the jurisdiction of the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimants failed to provide evidence showing a causal connection between the death and the employment, and thus, the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation lacked jurisdiction to pass an award. As a result, the appeal filed by the owner was allowed, the award of the Commissioner was set aside, and the application filed by the claimants was rejected.
Issues: The issues revolved around the cause of death of the employee, the jurisdiction of the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation to decide the claim, and the liability of the employer to pay compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to establish a causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment, as required under Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It held that the onus is upon the claimants to demonstrate the contribution of work and resulting strain to the injury, and without such evidence, the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation lacked jurisdiction to pass an award.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the owner was allowed, the award of the Commissioner was set aside, and the application filed by the claimants was rejected. No costs were awarded to either party, and any amount released to the claimants was not to be refunded to the owner.
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, (here-in-after referred to as the Act) is directed against the award of the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation District Una dated 14.12.2005, whereby he has allowed the application for grant of compensation filed by the claimants and held the employer (appellant) liable to pay compensation of Rs. 2,03,092/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of death till deposit of the amount. The employer has been given the right to recover the same from the Insurance Company.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimants are widow and minor children of Sukh Chain Singh. They filed a claim petition under Section 4 of the Act in which they averred that the deceased Sukh Chain Singh was employed as driver with respondent Ramdev Puri. According to the claimants, on 22.11.1999 Sukh Chain Singh was deputed with truck bearing registration No. HP-20-9082 loaded with coal. Manjit Singh was the conductor of the truck and in the course of employment he died at Sarsawa/Jagadhri on 22.11.1999. It was further alleged that the owner after reaching the spot did not permit post-mortem to be performed. The owner filed a written statement denying that Sukh Chain Singh was employed as a Driver. It was pleaded that Sukh Chain Singh had died a natural death at his village and the death did not occur during the course of employment. The Insurance Company denied the case in toto. One of the issues framed was whether the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation has no jurisdiction to decide the petition. The claimant appeared as PW-1 and stated that her husband died on 22.11.1999 at the U.P. border near Yamuna Nagar. She has not stated a word about the cause of the death.
3. Manjit Singh was the conductor of the truck. According to him, deceased Sukh Chain Singh was the driver in the truck. They loaded coal at Jallandhar. Whey they were near the U.P. border at Sarsawa they stopped to have food and rest. They spent the night there. At 9.00 a.m. in the morning Sukh Chain went to ease himself. He suffered from a stomach ache. He came back and lay down in the truck. Manjit Singh then went to get a doctor. He could not find any doctor and when he came back he found that Sukh Chain had expired. He then rang up Shyam Lal Puri, who is the brother of the owner of the vehicle. Shyam Lal Puri alongwith some other persons came to the spot and the body was taken to the village of deceased Sukh Chain Singh.
4. DW-3 is one Kewal Singh, who states that on 22.11.1999 he was taken by Syam Lal Puri and some other persons to Sarsawa and from where they returned with the body of Sukh Chain. Karnail Singh, DW-4 is the brother of the deceased. He states that on 22.11.1999 he received a telephone call that his brother had expired in the vehicle. The witness went to Sarsawa and Manjit Singh conductor told him that in the morning when Sukh Chain suffered a stomach-ache and died.
5. RW-1 Surinder Kumar is the Panchayat Secretary, who has proved that as per Pariwar Register Sukh Chain had died at village Panjawar itself due to heart-attack. RW-2 is the owner who states that deceased was not employed with him permanently but he used to engage his services of and on. He produced the policy of insurance. He denied that the accused have been engaged or deployed with the truck at the relevant time. The learned Commissioner accepted the version of the claimants and came to the conclusion that the deceased had died while on duty with the truck and awarded compensation. This award is under challenge in this appeal.
6. I have heard Shri Baldev Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri R.K. Gautam, learned Senior counsel for the claimants No. 1 to 3 and Shri G.D. Sharma, counsel for the respondent No. 4.
7. At the outset, it may be noted that the main ground of challenge raised by Shri Baldev Singh, Advocate, is that even if the version of the claimants be accepted at its
