The Divisional Controller NEKRTC vs Kiran and others. Miscellaneous First Appeal 201567/2017 decided on 23 December 2020. Justice Sunil S. Dutt Yadav and Justice P.N. Desai.
Judgment Link. http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354716/1/MFA201567-17-23-12-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: 15. Insofar as the second contention of the appellant that the death due to heart attack cannot be construed to be an accident “arising out of” and “in the course of employment” is not a “personal injury” as per Section 3 of the Act, 1923, the following substantial question of law is framed as under: “Whether the ƒinding oƒ the ‘Commissioner’ holding that the death oƒ the employee was by accident arising out oƒ the course oƒ the employment is in accordance with Section 3 oƒ the Act 1923? “
18. Section 3 of the Act, 1923 provides for Employer’s liability in cases of “personal injury” provided a) the workman must have sustained personal injury; b) the personal injury must have been caused by an accident; c) the accident may have arisen out of and in the course of employment and d) the personal injury caused to the workman must have resulted either in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days or it must have resulted in the death of the workman. The expression “personal injury” has not been defined. It need not involve physical trauma, but may include such injuries as disease, sunstroke, nervous collapse, traumatic neurosis, hysterical paralysis and neurasthenia. It may be external, or may be internal. In the case of chest pain arising during duty after remaining busy in strenuous work for many hours may be termed as an accidental internal injury. The word ‘personal injury’ being wider than bodily injury also includes all physical injuries which may be caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. It also includes all mental stress and strains or mental tension or mental illness or psychological diseases, provided such mental conditions have arisen by accidents arising out of and in the course of employment. Similarly, a death from heat stroke has also been held to be personal injury entitling the dependant to compensation. It may also include nervous shock caused by an excitement and alarm resulting from a fatal accident to a fellow workman.
19. The word, “accident” has not been defined in the statute but the judgment law by this time has adequately defined it. ‘Accident’ should be understood in the popular and ordinary sense as an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed. For the purpose of law relating to the compensation for personal injuries sustained by workman and the employer’s liability in that behalf includes any injury, which is not designed by the workman himself, and it is of no consequence that the injury was designed and intended by the person inflicting the same.
Case laws referred: National Insurance Company Ltd. Bangalore vs. Balawwa and Others 1993 (2) KLJ 406, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Susheela 2004 (3) LLN 732, of General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay vs. Smt. Agnes AIR 1964 SC 193, Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, Gulbarga vs. Sangamma and Others 2005 (2) L.L.N. 776, Daya Kishan Joshi and Ors. Vs. Dynemech Systems Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (11) SCC 642, Leela Bai and Another vs. Seema Chouhan and Another (2019) 4 SCC 325, Poonam Devi and Ors. Vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 55, Malikarjun G. Hiremath vs Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in 2009 ACJ 721 (SC).
27. Therefore, for the last 22 years he was driving the bus which is admittedly a heavy motor vehicle belonging to the Transport Corporation of the appellant. It is also evident that the bus was driven in a city that too in day time. The very nature of work of the deceased that is driving heavy vehicle causes lot of stress and strain, that too in a big city like Kalaburagi which is a district head quarters. The drivers of heavy vehicle have to face lot of stress and strain because of movements large number of vehicles and public in big cities. The very nature of work of driving heavy vehicle continuously for more than 22 years definitely causes stress and strain, which is incidental to the nature of employment. It is not the case of appellants that he had any disease or he died due to some other reason. The medical reports and evidence placed by petitioners clearly indicates deceased died while on duty due to heart attack.
31. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and in the light of the principles stated in the above referred decisions, if the petitioners-claimants contentions is considered then it can be safely concluded that deceased- Vijayakumar suffered “heart attack” which is “accident” and it is “personal injury” caused to him “arising out of” and “during the course of employment”. The ingredients of Section 3(l) of the Act, l923, are fully complied by the respondents- claimants. The appellant has failed to show any grounds for interference by this Court. Keeping in mind the object and reasons for enacting the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which is a social welfare legislation ment for welfare of employer and employees, if the evidence placed before the Court, in the light of the well established principles regarding appreciation of evidence in such cases, then it is evident that the appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the substantial question of law is answered in affirmative.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 