Liability of the insurance company for payment of interest imposed against the employer in a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

P.K. Jaiswal, J.

This appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'W.C. Act') has been filed by claimants against the order dated 21.11.2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Indore in W.C.F. Case No. 79 of 2006. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law :

Whether the claimants are entitled for interest from the date of accident from all the respondents jointly and severally?

2. The material facts of the case are that Manoharsingh (hereinafter called 'the deceased') was working as a driver in tanker bearing registration No. MP 09-KB 8090. The said vehicle belonged to respondent No. 1. On 12.4.2006 the said tanker was loaded with molasses at Borowa for its transportation to Borali Badnawar at Oasis Distillery, Borali. When Manoharsingh, driver of the tanker, reached near Khalghat, he was not feeling well. He suddenly developed chest pain, but he came to Borali and unloaded the tanker at Oasis Distillery. After unloading he parked the tanker near the distillery and was taking rest in the cabin of the tanker. After some time the cleaner came in the cabin of the tanker and saw that driver had died in the cabin. He was immediately taken to S.H.C. Hospital, Badnawar, where the doctor declared him dead. His post-mortem was conducted at S.H.C. Hospital, Badnawar. Undisputedly the accident had occurred while deceased was performing his duties.

3. The appellants herein--the mother, father, daughter and brother (sic widow, 2 sons and daughter)--filed a claim petition under the W.C. Act before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, which was registered as W.C.F. Case No. 79 of 2006. The vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 2.

4. The fact that at the time of his death the deceased Manoharsingh was discharging his duties is not disputed. The autopsy was conducted where cause of death is opined as cardiac arrest No injury on his body was found. The Commissioner after appreciating the material on record came to the conclusion that accident occurred during the course of employment and held that the deceased was a workman and he died during the course of employment and awarded Rs.3,51,080 as compensation. The Commissioner also awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of accident till its realization and directed the respondent No. 1 to pay the amount of interest within a period of 45 days from the date of order.

5. The respondent No. 2 insurer after admission of the appeal filed the cross-objection on 24.9.2008 on the ground that learned Commissioner without arriving at a finding that the job of the workman involved any stress or strain allowed compensation for his death due to heart attack while on duty. It is submitted that the learned Commissioner erred in allowing compensation without arriving at a finding that job involved any stress or strain. It would contend that only because the cause of death was due to heart attack the same by itself may not be a ground to arrive at a conclusion that an accident had occurred resulting in any injury. In support of the said argument the learned counsel for the insurance company placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Another, (2007) 11 SCC 668. In the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali (supra) a cleaner while alighting from vehicle suddenly developed chest pain, was taken to hospital where he was declared dead. Autopsy was conducted and doctor opined that cause of death was cardiac arrest due to rupture aortic aneurysm. In absence of pleadings and evidence produced that deceased met with his death by reason of any stress or strain, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there was no evidence of any causal connection between the accident and the injury so as to fulfil the requirements of the term 'out of employment'. Para 40 is relevant which reads as under :

(40) A jurisdi