Back
2006 Supreme(UK) 393
2006 (2) U.D., 419
High Court of Uttaranchal
Rajeev Gupta, C.J. and J.C.S. Rawat, J.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Neema Bhandari and another - Respondents
Appeal from Order No. 470 of 2004,
decided on 31-07-2006.
Sri D.S Patni and Sri Anil Dabral, Advocates for the appellant.
Sri Gopal Narain and Sri L. K. Verma, Advocates for respondent No.1.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'accident' and 'injury' under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the requirement for establishing a causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment.
Headnote:
Workmen's Compensation Act - Insurer's Appeal - Section 30 - Death during Employment - Section 3
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, regarding the death of an employee during the course of his employment and the subsequent claim for compensation by the deceased's wife.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased did not suffer a heart attack due to any stress or strain of his employment, and the distance between the place of the heart attack and his workplace led to the conclusion that the death did not occur during the course of his employment. The appellant's appeal was allowed, and the impugned award was set aside.
Issues: The main issue was whether the death of the employee occurred during the course of his employment, thus entitling the claimant to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which outlines the employer's liability for compensation in case of personal injury caused to a workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The court also considered the interpretation of 'accident' and 'injury' as per legal precedents.
Final Decision: The appellant's appeal was allowed, and the impugned award was set aside. The court also addressed the withdrawal of the deposited amount by the claimant and left it open to the appellant to either write off or recover the balance amount from the claimant.
Rajeev Gupta C.J.
This is insurer's appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the Award dated 08-10-2004 passed by Commissioner for Workmen Compensation/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haldwani, district Nainital in Case No. WCA 63 of 2002, whereby the appellant- Insurance Company was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,45,140/(Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Five Thousand One Hundred and Forty only) as compensation and interest to the claimant.
2. First respondent Smt. Neema Bhandari filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation claiming compensation for the death of her husband Laxman Singh Bhandari, who died during the course of his employment with second respondent on 08-07-2002, when he suffered heart attack while boarding a bus at Bus Station Pithoragarh for going to his work place, Chirdila.
3. The employer of deceased Laxman Singh Bhandari and the appellant- Insurance Company contested the claim on the plea that the death of Laxman Singh Bhandari did not occur during the course of his employment and as such, the claimant was not entitled to any compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
4. The Commissioner, for Workmen Compensation, on the evidence led by the parties, found that Laxman Singh Bhandari suffered heart attack while boarding bus at Bus Station Pithoragarh for going to his work place Chirdila. Following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Assistant Executive Vs. Santwa & another (MFA4428/1997), it was held that the death of Laxman Singh Bhandari was during the course of his employment. Considering the income of the deceased and his age, the Commissioner assessed the compensation at Rs. 3,68,340/-. A further sum of Rs. 1,76,800/- was awarded as interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period between 08.07.2002 and 08.07.2004 (there is an apparent mistake in the computation of the amount of interest, as the correct amount of interest @ 12% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs. 3,68,340/- for a period of two years from 08-07-2002 to 08-07-2004 would be Rs. 88,400/- only and not Rs. 1,76,800/- as assessed by the Commissioner in the impugned Award).
5. Mr. D.S. Patni, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has erred in holding that the death of Laxman Singh Bhandari was during the course of his employment. The learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Jyothi Ademma Vs. Plant Engineer, Nellore & another reported in 2006(5) Supreme 327, contended that as the deceased died on account of heart attack, suffered by him while lJoarding a bus at Bus Station Pithoragarh which is situated at a distance of about 120 Kms. from his work place Chirdila, the claimant has miserably failed in establishing that the death of deceased Laxman Singh Bhandari was during the course of his employment as a dumper driver with the second respondent.
6. Mr. Gopal Narain, the learned counsel for respondent NO.1 claimant Smt. Neema Bhandari, on the other hand, supported the Award and submitted that the Commissioner has rightly held that the death of Laxman Singh Bhandari was during the course of his employment.
7. Deceased Laxman Singh Bhandari was in the employment of second respondent as a dumper driver. He suffered heart attack on 08-07-2002 while boarding a bus at Bus Station Pithoragarh. There is not even an iota of evidence to establish that the deceased Laxman Singh Bhandari suffered heart attack on account of any stress or strain of his employment.
8. True, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is a beneficial legislation and as such, ambiguity, if any, in the provisions of the Act has to be resolved in such a manner that the same advances the object sought to be achieved by enacting this Act. Now, we will examine the provisions of Section 3 of the Act with a view to ascertain as to whether the claimant is entitled to get compensati
