Dismissed

M/s Fair Flux p Limited v. Smt. Kanka

Chhattisgarh HC24 Nov 2023MAC/1694/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed an appeal against an award granting compensation to dependents of a deceased employee. The respondent employee fell dead during work hours; autopsy showed internal cardiac failure. Commissioner held it was an accident. This Court distinguished precedents requiring separate strain evidence, noting a fall can cause internal injury, and upheld the compensation. Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. No compensation order was varied. No costs awarded.

M/s Fair Flux p Limited Vs Smt. Kanka — Chhattisgarh HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

Judgment Reserved on 29.08.2023

¶3

Judgment Pronounced on 24.11.2023

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1694 of 2016

¶7

M/s Fair Flux P Limited Work Order No. 414002225, Site- R E D 1 S M S, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...............Non-Applicant No.1

¶8

---- Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Smt. Kanka W/o Late P. Venkatrao, Aged About 39 Years R/o Vranda Nagar, Ram Mandir, House No.757, Camp-1, Ward No.19, Police Station Chhavni, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimant No.1

¶11

P.Lakhan S/o Late P.Venkatrao, Aged About 23 Years R/o Vranda Nagar, Ram Mandir, House No.757, Camp-1, Ward No.19, Police Station Chhavni, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimant No.2

¶12

P.Komlata D/o Late P.Venkatrao, Aged About 20 Years R/o Vranda Nagar, Ram Mandir, House No.757, Camp-1, Ward No.19, Police Station Chhavni, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimant No.3

¶13

Smt. Chaliamma S/o Kamraju, Aged About 65 Years R/o Vranda Nagar, Ram Mandir, House No.757, Camp-1, Ward No.19, Police Station Chhavni, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimant No.4

¶14

Shri Kamraju S/o Tataiya, Aged About 73 Years R/o Vranda Nagar, Ram Mandir, House No.757, Camp-1, Ward No.19, Police Station Chhavni, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimant No.5

¶15

Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ................Non-Applicant No.2

¶16

---- Respondents

¶17

For Appellant : Shri Yashkaran Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 5 : Shri Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Shri Chetan Singh Chauhan, Advocate on behalf of Shri Ashish Surana, Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶19

CAV Judgment

¶20

This appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act of 1923’) has been filed being aggrieved by award dated

¶21

¶22

05/10/2016 by the learned Commissioner, Labour Court, Durg, Chhattisgarh for short ‘learned Commissioner’) in Case No.34/W.C.Act/2013 Fatal. By the impugned award, learned Commissioner has allowed the application under Section 22 of the Act of 1923 filed by respondents 1 to 5 on account of death of deceased – P.Venkatrao in an accident that took place on 14/08/2012 during the course of employment of the appellant.

¶23

Learned Commissioner, awarded Rs.4,07,016/- as compensation in favour of respondents 1 to 5 / claimants and against appellant / employer to be deposited within 45 days failing which, 12% interest was imposed from the date of accident till actual payment.

¶24

Facts of the case in brief is that the deceased P.Venkat Rao under the employment of the appellant / employer was working as helper in the institution of respondent No.2. While working, on 14/08/2012, he fell down at the work place and died. At that time, he was aged 40 years and earning Rs.4420/- per month income. As the appellant as well as respondent No.2 has not paid any compensation on account of death of the deceased, the application under Section 22 of the Act of 1923 was filed.

¶25

The application was resisted by the appellant as well as respondent No.2. The appellant, in its written statement admitted employment of the deceased. It was pleaded that the deceased died naturally and not in any accident. Respondent No.6, Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant also filed his written statement and pleaded that the deceased was the employee of the appellant and his death has not occurred as a result of any accident during the course of employment, hence, prayed for dismissal of the application.

¶26

Learned Tribunal framed following issues -

¶27

“1. Whether the death of P. Venkatrao, husband of claimant No.1 died as a result of an accident took place on 14/08/2012 while working under the non-applicants?

¶28

2. What was the age and monthly income of the deceased on the date of accident?

¶29

3. Whether the applicants are entitled to received compensation from the non-applicants being legal dependents of the deceased ? If yes then how much and from which non-applicant ?

¶30

¶31

4. Whether the claim is liable to be rejected in the light of the objection raised by the non-applicants in their written statement ?

¶32

5. Relief and cost ?”

¶33

Issue no.1 was decided in positive. In issue No.2, age of the deceased was held to be 40 years and monthly income was held to Rs.4420/-. Issue no.3 was decided in positive and issue no.4 was decided in negative and while deciding issue No.5 regarding relief and cost, the aforesaid compensation was awarded.

¶34

Shri Yashkaran Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no nexus between the injury caused to the deceased with his employment because it is not a case of accident during the course or arising out of the employment. He submits that from the evidence on record, it is established that the deceased died due to heart attack has the direct nexus with the work which caused stress and therefore, he suffered heart attack. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shakuntala Chandrakant v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and anr. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 668 .

¶35

Shri Vipin Tiwari, learned counsel for the claimants submits that there is material on record to show that during the course of employment, the deceased fell down from the first floor and sustained injuries and thus, it is manifest that the death occurred during the course of employment.

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent No.6 supports the submission of counsel for the appellant.

¶37

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records.

¶38

Supreme Court, on the case of Shakuntala (supra), held as under -

¶39

“16. Before we analyse the provisions of the Act, we may notice that in the claim petition, there was no allegation that (I) the deceased met with his death by reason of any strain of work; (ii) appellant had no personal knowledge as regards quantum or nature of work required to be performed by the de-

¶40

¶41

ceased; and (iii) as to how severe strain during his service was caused.

¶42

17. The deceased had admittedly suffered a massive heart attack. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the heart attack was caused while doing any job. Even according to the employer, he at the relevant time was merely getting down from the vehicle.

¶43

18. The driver of the vehicle who was brother of the deceased was the best witness to state as to under what circumstances the deceased met with his death or whether the death had occurred due to some strain. He did not examine himself. The doctor who performed post-mortem examination was also not examined.

¶44

36. “Only because the cause of death was due to heart attack, the same by itself may not be a ground to arrive at a conclusion that an accident had occurred resulting in injury.

¶45

38. Unless evidence is brought on record to elaborate that the death byway of cardiac arrest has occurred because of stress or strain, the Commissioner would not have jurisdiction to grant damages. In other words, the claimant was bound to prove jurisdictional fact before the Commissioner. Unless such jurisdictional are found, the Commissioner will have no jurisdiction to pass an order. It is now well settled that for arriving at a finding of a jurisdictional fact, reference to any precedent would not be helpful as a little deviation from the facts of a decided case or an additional fact may make a lot of difference by arriving at a correct conclusion. For the said purpose, the statutory authority is required to pose unto himself the right question.”

¶46

P. Lakhan, son of the deceased was examined before the learned Commissioner. In his affidavit under Order 8 Rule 4 CPC, he has categorically stated that the deceased was under employment of the appellant and was working in the Bhilai Steel Plant for the last 6 to 7 years prior to the incident. He has also stated that the deceased was under the

¶47

¶48

employment of the appellant and the work in the Bhilai Steel Plant was being performed through the appellant and the deceased died during the course or arising out of the employment.

¶49

Smt. Kanka, wife of the deceased was also examined and she has also stated that the deceased was working as helper under the employment of appellant. On 14/08/2012, while working, he suddenly fell down and died. Manharan Lal Yadav has stated in his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC has stated that he and the deceased were residing in Bhilai and working with the appellant and for the last 6 to 7 years, the Contractor – appellant was working in the Bhilai Steel Plant. He has stated that prior to the date of incident, the deceased was sick and he was under treatment. He has stated that on the date of incident, during work, no incident had occurred and the deceased died in natural course. He stated that in some other place than the work place, he died by falling and he died a natural death. In his crossexamination, he has stated that the In-charge got typed the affidavit and asked to sign on it. L. Umapati also examined as witness and he has also stated that the death of the deceased was natural and he died somewhere else within the work place resulting into death and there is no injury or scratches on his body.

¶50

The employment of the deceased with the appellant is not in dispute. Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex.P/5-C) reflects that on the date of incident i.e. 14/08/2012 in the night at 9 PM, the deceased had gone to work in the Bhilai Steel Plant and in the night at about 11:20 PM, during the course of work, he suddenly fell down and his colleagues took him to the hospital where he was found dead. The autopsy of the deceased was conducted. The autopsy report (Ex.P/7-C) indicates that the cause of death is ‘ Coma due to Cardio Vascular Accident with Intra Cerebral leak of Blood’.

¶51

Learned Commissioner, on the basis of material available on record, came to a specific finding with regard to issue no.1 that the deceased died during the course of employment in an accident that took place on 14/08/2012.

¶52

On 02/02/2017, the appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law -

¶53

“Whether the appreciation on applicability of Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is perverse?”

¶54

¶55

In the case of C. Manjamma v. Divisional Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd reported in (2022) 6 SCC 206, Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court reversing the judgment passed by the Commissioner granting compensation in favour of the claimants therein. Supreme Court observed that there was a specific finding of fact given by the Commissioner that no substantial question of law is involved and therefore the High Court fell in error in entertaining the appeal.

¶56

Simply because the deceased does not sustain injury on his person, it cannot be said that he could not sustain internal injuries on account of falling during the course of employment. The autopsy report also indicates that the cause of death was “Coma due to Cardio Vascular Accident with Intra Cerebral leak of Blood”. With due respect, the case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant would not help him in any manner as it is distinguishable on facts. In the case in hand, the deceased was under employment and he was on duty when the accident took place and as per the evidence available on record, he fell down which is also reflected from the Naksha Panchayatnama . The substantial question of law is answered in negative in favour of respondents 1 to 5 / claimants. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No cost.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

(Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge

¶59

Deepti

M/s Fair Flux p Limited v. Smt. Kanka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Fair Flux p Limited v. Smt. Kanka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Maharaj @ Shailendra Awasthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Shanti Sing Vs Sachiv, Vijay Jalkshatriya

Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur Vs Smt. Shanti Singh

Anup Lal Nishad Vs Ravi Sahu

Sail Bai Vs Shri Lal Yadav

Rajendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh