Death due to overwork can be considered an accident arising out of and in the course of employment under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

( 1 ) THIS miscellaneous appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is directed against the order dated 24. 9. 1997 in Case no. 5 of 1996 by the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation/labour Court no. 1, Jabalpur awarding compensation of Rs. 77,856 in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1.

( 2 ) CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT No. 1 is the wife of deceased Gangaram, who was employed as driver by respondent No, 2 and was thus his workman. The appellant is insurer of the truck owned by respondent no. 2. On 24. 12. 1993 Gangaram was on duty as driver and was taking the truck of respondent No. 2 from Jabalpur to Vairawal, district Junagarh, in Gujarat. He died on way due to heart attack. The claimant-respondent no. 1 alleged that it was on account of strain of work that the death as above occurred. The claim petition was resisted by the appellant.

( 3 ) THE learned Commissioner held that the deceased Gangaram was the workman of respondent No. 2. He died in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent No. 2. An amount of Rs, 77,856 was awarded as compensation, as per Schedule of the Act.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant insurer submitted that since the deceased gangaram died of heart attack, the learned commissioner was in error in holding that the death of Gangaram was due to accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

( 5 ) IT may be noticed that the claimant-respondent no. 1 categorically asserted that her husband, the deceased Gangaram, suffered heart attack on account of strain of work. The claimant-respondent No. 1 examined herself in support of her assertion as above. Her statement indicates that the employer, respondent No. 2 had no second driver and, therefore, her husband, the deceased Gangaram, was required to work overtime, as a result of which he was under great strain and suffered from heart attack which proved fatal. The respondent no. 2 has not stepped into the witness-box to rebut the assertion and statement as above of claimant-respondent No. 1. Thus, the statement as above of the claimant-respondent no. 1 has remained virtually unchallenged.

( 6 ) IT would, therefore, be clear that the deceased died due to overwork while in the employment of the respondent No. 2. Therefore, the death of the deceased was due to accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

( 7 ) REFERENCE in the above connection may be made to Division Bench judgment of Gauhati High Court in National Insurance co. Ltd. v. Sabita Gope, 2000 ACJ 1153 (Gauhati), In that case, the driver of the truck was sent by the owner of the truck for delivering consignment. On the way truck had to stop on account of strike. At night after taking meals driver of the truck slept in the cabin of truck and died. Claim was preferred by the wife and mother of the deceased before the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation. An objection was raised that, as the driver of the truck died a natural death, it was not an accident and compensation was not payable under the Act. The Gauhati High Court repelled the contention as above. It was held that as the deceased had gone to the spot where he died in the course of his employment and death was as a result of causal connection between incident and employment and the death occurred in the course of his employment, therefore it was an accident within the meaning of the Act.

( 8 ) SIMILARLY in State of Rajasthan v. Man Kanwar, 1991 ACJ 446 (Rajasthan), a forest guard died due to heart attack while on duty. The post-mortem report revealed that the cause of death was shock due to acute myocardial infarction. The claim petition filed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was opposed by the employer and it was contended that the death of forest guard was not as a result of the accident. It was held that the deceased had to work overtime and he was on duty. Therefore,