Sanjeev Kumar, J
Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Minti Juddu and others – Respondent
MA No.48/2015|IA No.62/2015
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial appeal details and raised questions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background facts of the case including employment and cause of death. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments made by the appellant regarding lack of evidence. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's observations confirming causal link established by medical evidence. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. conclusion affirming the commissioner's decision and dismissing the appeal. (Para 12 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited [“the insurer”) filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 [“the Act”] is directed against the award dated 16th September, 2014 passed by the Commissioner under Employee‟s Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Jammu [“the Commissioner”] in file No.Death-06/ECAct/2013 titled Smt. Minti Juddu and others v. Parveen Dev Choudhary and another, whereby and whereunder respondent Nos. 1 to 6 [“the claimants”], the legal heirs of the deceased-Sushil Hasda, have been held entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,35,470/- along with interest to the tune of Rs.1,76,705/-, to be paid by the insurer.
2. The Insurer has raised following two substantial questions of law for determination in this appeal:-
i) Whether the learned Commissioner, under Employee‟s Compensation Act, 1923 (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Jammu was justified in awarding compensation for the death of the deceased workman, namely, Late Mr. Sushil Hasda, in the absence of any evidence that the deceased met with accident by reason of any stress or strain of the job?
ii) Whether the learned Commissioner, under Employee‟s Compensation Act, 1923 (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Jammu, was justified in ignoring the opinion of Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu, which stated the cause of death was “Coronary Artery Disease” Natural Death?
3. With a view to appreciating as to whether the aforesaid questions of law, proposed by the insurer, are substantial questions of law and arise out of the impugned award, it would be necessary to first set out few relevant facts.
The husband of respondent No.1, father of respondent Nos.2 to 5 and son of respondent No.6, namely, Sushil Hasda was working as Sub-Foreman (Electrical) with respondent No.7 at his stone crusher, namely, M/s Tawi Stone Crusher for the last more than 18 years and was drawing a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. On 30th November, 2011 at 4.30 pm while the deceased-Sushil Hasda was working at the said stone crusher, he suddenly fell unconscious and died on spot. Regarding the accident, inquest proceedings were initiated by the police of Police Station, Satwari and a special report B dated 27th March 2012 was submitted by the Police Post, Chatha. Autopsy was also performed on the dead body of the deceased on 1st December, 2011e in Govt. Medical College Hospital, Jammu. As per the opinion of the doctors conducting autopsy, the cause of death of the deceased was indicated to “Coronary Artery Disease (Natural Death)”. The viscera examination made by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Srinagar indicated that there was no poison detected in the viscera. The Department of Pathology, Govt. Medical College, Jammu, which conducted the pathological analysis for histopathological examination of heart and lung, opined as under:-
“Aorta shows focal sub-intimal mononuclear cell inflammatory infiltrate Left circumflex artery and left anterior descending artery shows atheromatous plaque Multiple sections examined from lung shows:
Focal alveolar dilatation, fibrinous exudation and vascular congestion Peribronchial carbon deposition are seen.”
4. With the aforesaid medical evidence, respondent Nos. 1 to 6 filed a claim petition before the Commissioner seeking compensation on account of death of the deceased- Sushil Hasda on the ground that the same had occurred out of and in the course of his employment with respondent No.7. The insurer, which had insured respondent No.7 under a policy, which was effectiv
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.