Work induced stress causing death comes under death of workman in course of employment.

(This Letters Patent Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and decree, dated 08.02.2002, in C.M.A.No.1332 of 1996, on the file of this Court.)

M. Jaichandren,J.

The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 8.2.2002, made in C.M.A.No.1332 of 1996.

2. It is the case of the appellant/Management that the respondent in the present appeal had filed a claim petition under Section 10(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act claiming compensation for the death of Selvan, on 18.10.1993.

3. It was stated by the applicant/respondent that the deceased Selvan was employed by the respondent and on 18.10.1993, while the deceased Selvan was doing work in a drench, he had chest pain and died thereafter. The applicant/respondent is a dependant of the deceased-workman being his wife and that the monthly wages of the deceased was Rs.1,000/- and the deceased at the time of his death was aged 45 years. The applicant claimed a lumpsum payment of Rs.67,776/- and prayed for an appropriate award before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore in W.C.Case No.67 of 1994.

4. The appellant herein and the respondent before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, had denied the allegation of the applicant stating that the deceased employee was given proper treatment in the estate Hospital and the death certificate was issued by the Group Medical Officer, dated 20.11.1993, stating that the death of employee, on 18.10.1993, was natural death. Further, it was also stated by the respondent/Management that there was no causal connection between the nature of the employment and the death that had occurred, on 18.10.1993. It was also stated that the deceased was paid average monthly income of Rs.960.59/- and that the applicant had to prove that the deceased died on account of an injury caused due to his employment and that it was in the force of his employment.

5. On the other hand, the applicant had stated that the deceased was engaged in the work relating to trench canal cutting work, which required constant bending and has to be performed with the help of an instrument and the nature of work was such that it was hard and strenuous and it had contributed strain and stress on the deceased, which accelerated his death.

6. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation had held in its order, dated 16.12.1994, that the strain and stress and the nature of the work, that the deceased was doing at the time of his death, had accelerated his death and therefore, the respondent in W.C.Case No.67 of 1994 and the appellant herein was liable to discharge the liability by paying a sum of Rs.65,716/-.

7. As against the said order, the appellant herein has filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.1332 of 1996 in which an order was passed by the learned single Judge, on 8.2.2002.

8. The learned single Judge had come to the conclusion that the workman had died of heart attack and there was a pre-existing heart condition, which was aggravated by the strain and stress of the deceased, which resulted in his death and held that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was right in holding that the workman had died of an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Learned single Judge had placed reliance on several decisions which are noticed hereunder.

(i) In Management Of Vanniar Estate Vs. Kamatchi & Comissioner For Workmen's Compensation (Ii (1991) ACC 633), wherein it is held that a pre-existing heart condition which was aggravated by the strain of the work of the deceased resulting in his death would constitute accidental injury within the meaning of the Act.

(ii) In Management Of Deveon Estate, Nilgiris Vs. Nabeesa (1991 ACJ 489) it is held that a workman while going to field from the muster suffered from acute chest pain and died instantaneously due to pre-existing heart condition, which was aggravated by the strain of work, it was held that the death