THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.04.2024, PASSED IN ECA.NO.19/2023, ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL NO.III AND PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT BALLARI AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.14,74,800/- WITH INTEREST AT 12 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant– insurance company against the judgment and award dated 05.04.2024 passed in ECA No.19/2023 by the MACT-III and Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Ballari.

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The deceased, Basavana Gouda, was working as a cleaner in a lorry bearing registration No.KA-34/A-8998 belonging to Sri Balaji Transport, situated at Republic Circle, Siruguppa Road, Ballari. On 11.11.2022 at about 1:00 p.m., as per the directions of the owner, the deceased was present in the office premises of Sri Balaji Transport, Republic Circle, Siruguppa Road, Ballari.

3. Due to stress, strain, and continuous work, he suffered a heart attack and was immediately shifted to VIMS Hospital, Ballari, where he was declared as dead.

4. The case of the claimants is that the death was occurred during the course of employment and arose out of employment with Sri Balaji Transport. The deceased was aged about 36 years and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as a cleaner.

5. Further, the petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, seeking compensation on account of the death of Basavana Gouda during the course of employment on 11.11.2022 at about 1.00 p.m.

6. The owner of the vehicle filed a statement of objections admitting the relationship of employer and employee and also admitted that the incident occurred during and in the course of employment. It was further contended that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company and hence the liability, if any, is to be indemnified by the insurer.

7. The insurance company filed its statement of objections denying the claim and contended that the petitioners had suppressed material facts. It was specifically contended that the death did not occur during the course of employment and that the deceased was suffering from coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and acute tubular necrosis. It was further alleged that the claim petition was filed in collusion with the owner. Hence, dismissal of the claim petition was sought.

8. On the basis of rival pleadings, the Commissioner framed relevant issues.

9. To substantiate the claim, Petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and 14 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P14.

10. On behalf of the respondent, an official of the insurance company was examined as RW1 and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2.

11. Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of ₹14,74,800/- with interest at 12% per annum after 30 days from the date of accident till realization.

12. The liability was fastened jointly and severally on the owner and the insurance company, with a direction to the insurance company to deposit the amount within the 60 days from the date of award.

13. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant– insurance company and the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants.

14. The learned counsel for the insurance company/appellant contended that there is no causal connection between the death and the employment. It was argued that the deceased died due to pre-existing heart ailments and not during the course of employment and out of the employment. Hence, the insurance company is n