The court confirmed that a work-related heart attack constitutes an accident under the Employees Compensation Act if stress from employment contributed to the health condition, validating claims for compensation in such scenarios.

JUDGMENT

Appellant is the second opposite party in ECC No.66 of

2022 on the files of the Employees Compensation Commissioner, Kozhikode. The respondents 1 and 2 approached the Commissioner seeking compensation for the death of late Ganesh, who was employed as a Conductor in a bus owned by the 3^rd respondent.

2. According to respondents 1 and 2 the deceased was employed as a Conductor under the 3^rd respondent for about 15 years. On 13.10.2021 he joined duty at about 7.30 a.m. and when the bus reached Kasaragod bus stand at about 10.30 a.m., he felt sustained chest pain and was admitted at KIMS Sunrise Hospital, Kasaragod. He was diagnosed with congestive heart failure and pulmonary edema. He was discharged after treatment on 16.10.2021 and was advised to take complete bed rest for two months. However, on 21.10.2021 he suffered heart attack and was immediately taken to the hospital. But he was declared brought dead. They contended that the deceased sustained heart disease due to stress and strain during the course of his employment. Hence, they contended that the death was an accident happened during the course of employment on account of the stress and strain due to the employment.

3. The 3^rd respondent, employer did not appear before the Commissioner and was set ex parte. The appellant entered appearance and filed written statement. Insurance coverage was admitted but employer-employee relationship and the accident were denied. The appellant contended that the deceased died due to heart attack in natural course and that the death did not occur during the course of employment. Therefore, they contended that the respondents 1 and 2 were not entitled for compensation under the Employees Compensation Act .

4. The learned Commissioner framed four issues for consideration on the basis of pleadings. The 1^st respondent was examined as AW1 and the driver of the bus was examined as AW2. The doctor who treated the deceased was examined as AW3. Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the applicants. No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties.

5. The learned Commissioner, on conclusion of trial, appreciated the evidence and concluded that the deceased was an employee as defined under Section 2 (1)(dd) of the Employees Compensation Act and the accident on 13.10.2021 and consequential death on 21.10.2021 were out of and during the course of his employment. The Commissioner held that the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to a compensation of Rs.9,07,875/- with simple interest at the rate of 12% from 21.10.2021 till deposit. An amount of Rs.15,000/- was granted towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,842/- was granted towards treatment expenses. The appellant being the insurer of the vehicle at the time of accident, was held liable to indemnify the owner and to make the payment.

6. Assailing the impugned order, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the conclusions of the Commissioner are erroneous. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is no evidence regarding any extra ordinary circumstances leading to stress and strain on 13.10.2021. The deceased was discharging normal duties attached to the employment on that day. He felt chest pain and was admitted to a hospital. He was diagnosed with congestive heart disease and pulmonary edema. Those conditions were naturally developed and cannot be attributed to stress and strain of the employment. The deceased was treated and discharged from the hospital. After some days he suffered heart attack and died. He was not on duty after 13.10.2021. The