SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(MP) 708

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA, MR. JUSTICE U. C. MAHESHWARI, JJ
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD - Appellant
Versus
MOLIYA DEVI - Respondents
M. A 1130 Of 2002
Decided On : 07/20/2005

Advocates Appeared:
D.N.Shukla, N.K.MISHRA, Neeraj Vegad

The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in determining compensation for death during employment, and the requirement of establishing a nexus between the cause of death and the employment.

Headnote:

Workmen's Compensation - Death during Employment - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Section 4(1)

Fact of the Case:

The appeal was filed by the insurer against the compensation awarded to the claimants for the death of a truck driver during the course of employment. The deceased experienced stomach pain while working and subsequently died during the course of employment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the deceased's stomach pain had a nexus with the employment, as heavy work was assigned to him, and the doctor confirmed that such pain is common due to driving and mental tension caused by driving. The court also determined the compensation based on the deceased's monthly wages and allowance, in accordance with the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

Issues: The issues included the cause of the deceased's death during employment, the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the determination of compensation based on the deceased's wages and allowance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deceased's stomach pain had a nexus with the employment, and the compensation was determined in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, affirming the compensation awarded to the claimants.

ARUN MISHRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the insurer aggrieved by order dated 22. 3. 2002 passed by the Commissioner, workmen's Compensation, Labour court, Satna in Case No. B/3/w. C. Act/fatal of 2000 awarding compensation of rs. 2,21,980. 50 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of accident.

( 2 ) THE claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 6 filed an application before the Commissioner, Workmen's compensation seeking compensation on account of death of ramkhilawan who was driver of the truck bearing registration No. MP 19-A 9454. The vehicle was owned by respondent Nos. 7 and 8,. e. , Agarwal Enterprises, Jeewan jyoti and Hans Forwarding and Transport agency and insured with the appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd.

( 3 ) ON 2. 10. 1999, deceased came from allahabad and was sent to cement factory to load the cement. In the night, he felt pain in the stomach and was shifted to District hospital, Satna where he died during the course of employment. Hence, compensation was claimed. Age of deceased was 53 years.

( 4 ) NON-APPLICANT No. 1, Agarwal Enterprises, jeewan Jyoti, in the reply contended that non-applicant No. 1 was owner of the truck, it was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. The deceased was receiving salary of Rs. 1,500 per month plus diet allowance.

( 5 ) IN the reply filed by non-applicant no. 2 all the facts are denied for want of knowledge.

( 6 ) IN the reply filed by non-applicant no. 3-appellant, the insurer has contended that the documents have not been furnished that the deceased died during the course of employment, hence, the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation.

( 7 ) THE Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation has found that the deceased felt pain in the stomach during the course of his employment. His salary was Rs. 2,000 per month and in addition he was receiving rs. 30 daily allowance. The Labour Court has determined the figure of Rs. 2,000 plus rs. 30 per day allowance and determined the compensation at Rs. 2,21,980. 50, relying upon the Explanation II of section 4 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

( 8 ) MR. D. N. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for appellant insurance company has raised two questions: the driver died during the course of employment there is no nexus of stomach pain with the duty which the deceased rendered as driver, and the provision mentioned in Explanation II of section 4 (1) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has been wrongly applied to take the income, 50 per cent of the monthly wages of the deceased,. e. , Rs. 2,000 out of Rs. 4,000 thus illegality has been committed by the Commissioner while computing the compensation payable to the claimants.

( 9 ) MR. Neeraj Vegad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 has submitted that the widow of the deceased had stated that the deceased was receiving Rs. 2,000 per month with Rs. 30 as daily allowance. Thus monthly income comes to Rs. 2,900. Even otherwise the just compensation has been awarded and no interference is called for. He further submitted that the deceased came from allahabad thereafter he was mercilessly sent to cement factory for loading cement without any rest which caused pain in his stomach which had nexus with the employment and the pain was suffered during the course of employment, due to arduous nature of work, no interference is called for.

( 10 ) MR. N. K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 has supported the submissions made by Mr. D. N. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.

( 11 ) FIRST we shall come to the question: whether driver died due to ailment having nexus to the course of employment? In our opinion, when the deceased returned from allahabad to Satna he had already rendered sufficient duty, thereafter, he was immediately sent to load the cement from factory which was clearly the cause of pain in the stomach of deceased, heavy work was taken from him as such we find its nexus








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top