THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.548 of 2021

JUDGMENT:

Heard Ms. Srinidhi, learned counsel representing Mr.N.Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/TSRTC and Mr.M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4/applicants.

2. The present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 10.03.2021 in E.C. Case No.43 of 2005 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar (hereinafter will be referred as “Tribunal”).

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the deceased by name Mr.Mark, was working as driver for the appellant/APSRTC (Now TGSRTC) and that on the fateful day i.e., on 07.08.2001 while he was performing his duties as driver on bus bearing No.AP 10Z 8644 on route of Manthani – Godavarikhani – Hanamkonda and back, at 06:30 hours, while he reached at 5 incline, he suffered chest pain but reached Godavarikhani bus station, and after parking the bus, informed the conductor that his chest pain was increasing and he could not drive the bus. The duty controller was also simultaneously informed and it was communicated to the Manthani Depot. Thereafter, the conductor took the deceased to RTC Consultant Doctor at Laxminagar, Godavarikhani, and the doctor referred the deceased to one Sri Surendra Nehru (General Medicine), D.E.N.B.E (Cardio) of Surendra Nehru Hospital, Godavarikhani, who in turn, after observing the serious condition of the driver, advised him to go to Hyderabad for better treatment and on that, deceased was carried in a private ambulance. Unfortunately, he expired while enrouting to Hyderabad. It was further contended by the applicants that the deceased was appointed as driver on 01.01.1999 and as on the date of the incident, he was 38 years old, rendered 3 years of service, and was receiving a monthly salary of Rs.4,219/-. Therefore, the claimants being the wife, children and parents of the deceased-workman filed application seeking compensation of Rs.3,79,120/- with interest @ 18% per annum and costs. However, the said application was filed with a delay of (711) days and the said delay was condoned.

4. The appellant/TSRTC filed counter before the Tribunal denying its liability as well as the contentions of the applicants and submitted that as the death of the deceased was a natural death, the applicant No.1 never made a representation seeking compensation under the Act, and immediately, after the death of the deceased, all the final benefits were paid to the wife of the deceased. It was further contended that as the route on which the deceased was performing duties as driver was a B.T. road, there was no stress and strain on the deceased to cause acute chest pain, and thus, the deceased-driver suffered acute chest pain not because of the road condition and that no medical evidence was produced to support the claim of the applicants. It was further contended that the death of the deceased was only a natural death and not arising out of employment, and therefore, the applicants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled for the compensation and prayed for dismissal of the application.

5. The learned Tribunal framed the following three issues for adjudication:

1. Whether the deceased is an employee/a workman as defined under the Act?

2. Whether the death occurred during and in course of employment under OP/respondent?

3. If so, what is the reasonable amount of compensation payable to the applicants?

6. During the course of enquiry, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked on behalf of claimants. On the other hand, on behalf of the appellant/TSRTC, its Superintendent was examined as RW1, however, no documentary evidence was adduced on its behalf.

7. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties and placing reliance on the decisions in Jyothi Ademma vs. Plant Engineer, Fenton vs. Thorley and Compa