Back
1995 Supreme(Mad) 454
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOVARDHAN
Tuticorin Stevedores Association, Tuticorin
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner for Labour, Tirunelveli & Others
C.M.A. No. 924 of 1987
Decided On :Decided on : 21-04-1995
For the Appellants:P. Peppin Fernando, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mrs. Meenalochini, Additional Government pleader (civil side).
The burden of proof is on the workmen to show that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. If there is an intervening factor, such as the employee's illness, the employer is not liable to pay compensation.
Headnote:
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 - SECTION 3 - DEATH OF EMPLOYEE - CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ACCIDENT AND DEATH - BURDEN OF PROOF - INTERVENING FACTOR OF EMPLOYEE'S ILLNESS.
Fact of the Case:
An employee, Chinnasamy Thevar, fell down during the course of his employment and became unconscious. He was admitted to the hospital and discharged after treatment. He reported to duty but later died. The issue was whether his death was caused by the accident or by an intervening factor, namely, his illness.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no direct connection between the accident and the death. The employee was suffering from tuberculosis and had recovered from the accident. The death occurred five months after the accident.
Issues: 1. Whether the death of the employee was caused by the accident or by an intervening factor, namely, his illness. 2. Whether the employer was liable to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Ratio Decidendi: To apply Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, it must be shown that there was a direct connection between the accident and the death. In this case, there was no such connection. The employee was suffering from tuberculosis and had recovered from the accident. The death occurred five months after the accident.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation awarding compensation to the petitioners.
1. This appeal is against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Commissioner for Workmens Compensation) Tirunelveli dated 25.9.1987.
2. The applicants are the sons of one Chinnasamy Thevar who was employed under the opposite Party as a loadman in harbour at Tuticorin. On 17.12.1985, during the course of his employment, he fell down on account of the crane sling hitting him and became unconscious. He was admitted in. the private hospital of one Rajan and discharged on 4.4.1986. He has reported to duty on 5.4.1986. Subsequently, he has taken treatment from 7.4.1986 to 13.4.1986 under one Doctor Madhiprakasam. He was again admitted in the hospital of Rajan on 14.4.1986 and then in the Government Hospital on 30.4.1986. On 4.5.1986, he died. Deceased Chinnasamy was aged 51 years drawing an income of Rs. 950/- per month. Hence, the claim is made for Rs. 56.875/-.
3. The opposite Party in his counter has stated that the death of Chinnasamy was not on account of the accident that took place on 17.12.1985 and there was no accident as alliged and he was admitted in the Hospital only since he complained of chest pain. He was discharged from the Hospital after treatment. Subsequently, he joined duty also and later died. Therefore, the death of Chinnasamy was not on account of any accident during the course of his employment.
4. On the above pleadings, an enquiry was held by the Deputy Commissioner and he had found the death of Chinnasamy was on account of the accident which occurred on 17.12.1985 during the course of his employment and awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,887.50.
5. Aggrieved over the same, the Opposite Party has preferred this appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that the deceased Chinnasamy was suffering from liver trouble and he was also a chronic patient of tuberculosis and the death was a natural death on account of his ailments and therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation is liable to be set aside. It must be noted that on 17-12-1985, the sling of the crane hit the deceased, as a result of which he fell down, and became unconscious. On the same day, he was also admitted in the Hospital where the employees of the respondent are usually given treatment and he was discharged only on 1-4-1986, after a prolonged treatment. It is also to be noted that there were no external or internal injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident that took place on 17-12-1985. He found fit for duty and therefore he has reported for duty on 5-4-1986. After working for about 10 days, he again got himself admitted in the Hospital on 14-4-1986 and ultimately he died on 4-5-1986.
7. The Commissioner of Workmens Compensation has held that the death was due to the accident that took place on 17-12-1985. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that there was no nexus between the accident that had happened on 17-12-1985 and the death of Chinnasamy on 4-5-1986 and it was only on account of the disease he was suffering, he died in the hospital. That the deceased was suffering from tuberculosis is not in dispute. The death of the deceased was after five months of the accident. There was no external or internal injuries found on the person of the deceased and he was found fit for duty on 5-4-1986. It is now for us to decide whether the death of Chinnasamy was on account of the accident during the course of his employment.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation viz. Additional Government Pleader (Civil Side) Tmt. Meenalochini would argue that when the workmen fell down on the ground and became unconscious on the date of the accident, it cannot be stated that there was no nexus between the death and the accident. She would also argue that when the accidental injury results in death and no other intervening factor is there, the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation has to be conf
