Insurance company challenged an employee compensation award for a lorry driver who died of a sudden heart attack at work. The court held that job stress accelerated his death, making it an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, dismissed the appeal and directed deposit of compensation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.A.No.883 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.02.2024
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
C.M.A.No.883 of 2022 and
C.M.P.No.6472 of 2022
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Motor Third Party Claims, No.232, Bombay Mutual Building, 6th Floor, NSC Bose Road, Chennai- 600 001. ... Appellant Vs.
... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 12th day of January, 2022 made in E.C.No.230 of 2018, on the file of Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-2 (Joint Commissioner of Labour-2) Chennai 600 006.
For Appellant : Ms.A.Salomi For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.G.F.Terry Chella Raja
1/11
C.M.A.No.883 of 2022
For R4
: Unclaimed, No appearance
JUDGEMENT
Challenging the order dated 12.01.2022 passed by Commissioner for
Employee's Compensation-2 (Joint Commissioner of Labour-2), Chennai made in E.C.No.230 of 2018.
2. On 03.09.2018 at about 6.10 p.m., the deceased namely Mr.Ramu, the husband of the first respondent, who was working as a Driver of the 4 th respondent/lorry, after unloading the goods from the lorry and while parking the vehicle in fourth respondent's office, he died on the spot, due to sudden heart attack. Hence, respondents 1 to 3, being the wife and daughter of the deceased made a claim for compensation under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act,1923.
3. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner
for Employee's Compensation-2 (Joint Commissioner of Labour-2) has awarded a sum of Rs.8,94,376/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said compensation amount, the appellant/Insurance Company has preferred the
2/11
C.M.A.No.883 of 2022
present appeal.
4. The only point for consideration arises in this appeal is, as to whether the death of the deceased was due to in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the 4th respondent, which caused due to stress and strain of his employment?
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in the PostMortem report-Ex.P6, the Doctor opined that the deceased had passed away due to the Coronery Artery Disease (natural cause) and therefore, the workman died due to the natural cause and the Authority had not considered this aspect in
proper perspective. In support of his contention, he referred to Section 3 of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the Act'), which is extracted
hereunder:
" 3. Employer's liability for compensation - (1) If personal injury is caused to a employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:
(a) In respect of any injury which does not result in total or partial disablement of the employee for a period exceeding three days;
(b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death [for permanent total disablement], caused by] an
3/11
C.M.A.No.883 of 2022
accident which is directly attributabe to-
(i) the employee having been at the time thereof under the influence of dring or drugs, or
(ii) the wilful disobedience of the employee to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of employees, or
(iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the employee of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of employeees.
(2) If a employee employed in any employment specified in part A of Schedule III contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, or if a employee whilst in the service of an employer in whose service he has been employed for a continous period of not less than six months (which period shall not include a period of service under any other employer in the same kind of employment) in any employment specified in Part B of Schedule III, contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, or if a employment specified in Part C of Scheule III for such continuous period as the Central Government may specify in respect of each such employment, contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational diease peculiar to by accident within the meaning of this section and, unless the contrary is proved, the accident shall be deemed to have arisen out of, and in the course of, the employment:
Provided that if it is proved-
(a) that a employeee whilst in the service of one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III has contracted a disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment during a continous period which is less that the period specified under the sub-section for that employment, and
(b) that the disease has arisen out of and in the course of the employment; the contracting of such disease
4/11
C.M.A.No.883 of 2022
shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section:
Provided further that if it is proved that the employee who having served under any employer in any employment specified in Part B of Schedule III or who having served under one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of that Schedule, for a continuous period specified under this sub-section for that employment and he has after the cessation of such service contracted any disease specified in the said Part B or the said Part C, as the case may be, as an occupational disease peculiar to the employment and that such disease arose out of the employment, the contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident withint the meaning of this section.
2-A. If a employee employed in any employment specified in Part C of Schdule III contracts any occupational disease peculiar to that employment, the contracting whereof is deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section, and such employment was under more than one employer, all such employers shall be liable for the payment of the comepnsation in such proportion as the Commissioner may, in the circumstances deem just
(3) The Central Government or the State Government after giving, by notification in the Official Gazette, not less than three months' notice of its intention so to do, may, by a like notification, add any description of employment to the employments specified in Schedule III, and shall specify in the case of employments so added the diseases which shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to be occupational diseases peculiar to those employments respectively, and thereupon the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply in the case of notification by the Central Government, within the territories to which this Act extends or, in case of a notification by the State Government, within the State as if such diseases had
5/11
C.M.A.No.883 of 2022
been declared by this Act to be occupational diseases peculiar to those employments.
(4) Save as provided by sub-sections (2), (2-A), and (3), no compensation shall be payable to a employee in respect of any disease unless the disease is directly attributable to a specific injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.
(5) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to confer any right to compensation on a employee in respect of any injury if he has instituted in a Civil Court a suit for damages in respect of the injury against the employer or any other person; and no suit for damages shall be maintainable by a employee in any Court of law in respect of any injury -
(a) if he has instituted a claim to compensation in respect of the injury before the Commissioner, or
(b) if any agreement has been come to between the employee and his employer providing for the payment of compensation in respect of the injury in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
appellant submitted that the Insurance Company is not laible to pay the compensation and thus he prayed this Court to allow this Appeal.
relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Param Pal
Singh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2013 (1) TN MAC (SC),
6/11
C.M.A.No.883 of 2022
submitted that if a workman died in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay the compensation. He further submitted that taking all these aspects into consideration, the Authority has rightly awarded the compensation to the claimants, which requires no interference.
records.
on by the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3, in para 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court hold, that even a workman dies from a pre-existing disease, if the disease is aggravated or accelerated under the circumstances which can be said to be accidental, his death results from injury by accident. The House of Lords in the case of “ Clover Claytan & Co. V. Hughes reported in 1910 AC
242” , it was held as follows:
" 4. Even if a workman dies from a pre-existing disease, if a disease if aggravated or accelerated under the circumstances which can be said to be accidental, his death results from injury by accident. This was clearly laid down by the House of Lords in Clover Clayton & Co. V. Hughes, where the deceased, whilest tightening a nut with a spanner, fell back on his hand and died. A post mortem examination showed that there was a large
7/11
C.M.A.No.883 of 2022
aneurism of the aorta, and that death was caused by repture of the aorta. The aneurism was in such an advanced condition that it might have burst while the man was alsoeep, and very slight exertion or strain would have been sufficient to bring about a rupture. The County Court Judge found that the death was caused by a strain arising out of the ordinary work of the deceased operating upon a condition of body which was such as to render the strain fatal, and held upon the authorities that this was an accident within the meaning of the Act. His decision was upheld both by the Court of Appeal and House of Lords:
"No doubt the ordinary accident," said Lord Loreburn, L.C. "is accociated with something external: the bursting of a boiler or an explosion in a mine, for example. But it may be merely from the man's own miscalcuation, such as tripping and falling. Or it may be due both to internal and exernal conditions, as if a seaman were to faint in the rigging and tumble into the sea. I think it may also be something going wrong within the human frame itself, such as straining of muscle or the breaking of a blood vessel. If that occurred when he was lifting a weight, it would properly be described as an accident. So, I think, rupturing an aneurism when tightening a nut with a spanner may be regarded as an accident."
With regard to Lord Macnanghten's definition of an accident being "an unlooked for mishap or untoward even which is not expected or designed" it was said that an event was unexpected if it was not expected by the man who suffered it, even though everyman of commonsense who knew the circumstances would think it certain to happen."
8/11
C.M.A.No.883 of 2022
9/11
C.M.A.No.883 of 2022
12. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount before the Joint Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai-6, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit, the said authority is directed to permit the respondents 1 to 3 to withdraw the same. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
1 6.02.2024
Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No jd
To
10/11
C.M.A.No.883 of 2022
Krishnan Ramasamy,J., jd
C.M.A.No.883 of 2022
16.02.2024
11/11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the driver's death from a heart attack while parking the lorry was an accident arising out of and in the course of employment entitling claimants to compensation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Param Pal Singh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.Relied on
2013 (1) TN MAC (SC)
Clover Claytan & Co. V. HughesRelied on
1910 AC 242
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Motor Third Party Claims, Chennai
Mrs.Bavani
Pavithra
Manimegalai
E.Rani
Krishnan Ramasamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
