Allowed

Smt.Rathnamma v. Chief Executive Engineer

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2021MFA/5713/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed an appeal challenging a dismissal of a workmen compensation claim. The court held the lower tribunal erred in excluding the causal link between an accident and the employee's death due to myocardial infarction. Compensation of Rs.11,04,749 was awarded.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs.11,04,749 with interest at 12% per annum from one month of death directed to be paid by the respondent.

Smt.Rathnamma Vs Chief Executive Engineer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO.5713/2013 (WC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SMT.RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O LATE DURGAPPA

¶9

2 . SRI MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O LATE DURGAPPA

¶10

3 . SRI D. NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O LATE DURGAPPA

¶11

4 . SRI D. JYOTHI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS D/O LATE DURGAPPA

¶12

5 . SRI D. PAVAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O LATE DURGAPPA

¶13

6 . SRI D. PRAVEEN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS S/O LATE DURGAPPA

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDING AT J.C.R. EXTENSION, JAGALUR DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001.

¶15

… APPELLANTS (BY SRI S.RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.B.MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

AND:

¶18

1 . CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL BESCOM SUB-DIVISION OFFICE) HADADI ROAD DAVANAGERE-577 001.

¶19

2 . ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM (O & M) SUB-DIVISILON OFFICE, JAGALUR DAVANAGERE-577 001.

¶20

… RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.02.2013 PASSED IN WCA-KAD/KNP/CR-45/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶23

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH ‘VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Though this appeal is listed for admission today, with the

¶26

consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶27

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants

¶28

challenging the Judgment and Award dated 25.02.2013 passed

¶29

¶30

in Dispute No.WCA/KAD/KNP/CR-45/2010 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Davanagere District, Davanagere, (‘the Commissioner’ for short).

¶31

The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased was working as lineman in the respondent-Electrical BESCOM, Sub-Division Office and during the course of his employment, he had sustained injuries on 23.08.2005 and subsequently he took prolonged treatment and ultimately he passed away in the year 2008. After the death, the claimants, who are the legal heirs, have approached the Commissioner for compensation. The Commissioner vide order dated 25.02.2013 dismissed the claim petition answering issue No.1 that the claimants have not proved the fact that the death was due to the injuries he has sustained in the incident and the post-mortem report discloses that the death is on account of ‘massive myocardial infarction’. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, the present appeal is filed and the substantial questions of law were raised before this Court are that:

¶32

(1) Whether the Employee’s Compensation Authority is justified in holding that the death of an employee is not on

¶33

¶34

account of the employment injury sustained while he was on duty on 23-08-2005?

¶35

(2) Whether the Employee’s Compensation Authority is justified in holding that the death of an employee is on account of ‘due to massive myocardial infarction’ despite the opinion of the doctor that the death of an employee was on account of the mental stress?

¶36

The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that in spite of the admission of RW.1 in his evidence that he had sustained the injuries during the course of the employment and thereafter he took the prolonged treatment and the Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.2 also categorically deposed that on account of the nature of injuries sustained and also due to the mental stress, he died. The Tribunal failed to consider the same.

¶37

The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court, particularly, the Commissioner though discussed while answering issue No.1, the evidence of R.W.1, but while answering issue No.1 contrary to the discussion, answered issue

¶38

¶39

No.1 as ‘negative’. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.

¶40

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would vehemently contend that the Commissioner in detail discussed while answering issue No.1 and rightly comes to the conclusion that the death was not on account of accidental injuries and the cause of death is related to the injury which he has sustained not in respect of the employment and the Doctor evidence is also clear that ‘due to massive myocardial infarction’, he lost his life.

¶41

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and on perusal of the grounds urged in the appeal and the materials available on record, the substantial questions that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

¶42

(i) Whether the Employee’s compensation authority is justified in holding that the death of an employee is not on account of the employment injury sustained while he was on duty on 23.08.2005?

¶43

¶44

(ii) Whether Employee’s compensation authority is justified in coming to the conclusion that the death of an employee is not on account of mental stress and the same same was on account of ‘ due to massive myocardial infarction’?

¶45

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):

¶46

Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the deceased, who was working as lineman with the respondent met with an accident on 23.08.2005. R.W.1 in the cross-examination categorically admitted that he has sustained the injuries during the course of his employment while attending his work. Also it is an admitted fact the respondents have met the medical expenses and even paid the advance for his treatment and also the documents clearly discloses that he was on leave from 2005 to 2007 and the document-Ex.R2 clearly discloses that they have considered the leave on account of the accidental injuries sustained i.e., from 23.08.2005 to 20.11.2005 for a period of 90 days and from 21.11.2005 to 18.07.2006 for a period of 180 days and again from 19.07.2006 to 18.07.2007 for a period of 365 days and he was in continuous leave on account of the

¶47

¶48

accidental injuries and ultimately he was succumbed to the injuries in the year 2008. The Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.2, in his evidence, he categorically deposes the cause of death. When he was cross-examined, a suggestion was made that prior to death, he was not treated him and also suggestion was made that the cause of death given by him was true but in his evidence he categorically deposes that he conducted the post-mortem report and the cause of death is mental stress. As a result, he suffered the heart attack. When such being the evidence of P.W.2, the Commissioner has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the death is not on account of an injury and the mental stress and given erroneous findings against the material on record. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court to come to a conclusion that the death is on account of the accidental injuries occurred on 23.08.2005 and he was in continuous treatment even though it was ‘due to massive myocardial infarction’. The medical evidence is clear that it was on account of mental stress, resulted in ‘massive myocardial infarction’ and the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to such a conclusion by answering issue No.1.

¶49

¶50

Now, this Court has to take note of the material on

¶51

record though the Workmen Commissioner has not assessed the compensation, no need to remand the matter and the same has to be calculated based on the age of the deceased and also the relevant factor and also considering the salary certificate, which is already marked as Ex.P6 and the same is not disputed, which discloses his salary was Rs.13,039/- and considering the relevant factor i.e., 169.44 taking into his age and according to the enactment 50% has to be deducted and after deducting it comes to Rs.6,520/- and applying the relevant factor, it comes to Rs.11,04,749/-. Hence, the claimants are entitled for the said amount with interest at 12% per annum from the date of one month of the death.

¶52

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(i) The appeal is allowed.

¶55

(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 25.02.2013 passed in Dispute No.WCA/KAD/KNP/CR45/2010 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen

¶56

¶57

Compensation, Davanagere District, Davanagere, is hereby set-aside.

¶58

(iii) Consequently, the appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.11,04,749/with interest at 12% per annum from the date of one month of his death.

¶59

(iv) The second respondent is directed to pay the compensation amount within eight weeks from today.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

cp*

Smt.Rathnamma v. Chief Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Rathnamma v. Chief Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Manager Vs Sri M S Devu

M.S. Devu Vs Sri T.M. Krishnamurthy

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri Veerabhadraiah

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Mr Chandashekar T M

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs v M Sundar

Chikkanna Vs M/S Reliance Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd.