DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC Vs. SANGAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant in this Appeal is a Divisional Controller of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. In this appeal the appellant has called in question the correctness of the order dated 17th August 2002 made in No.WCA.CR.25/2001 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner'), Gulbarga Division, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,94,120/ - (Rupees Three Lakh Ninety Four Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Only) by way of compensation to Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 on account of death of one Revanasiddappa, [hereinafter referred to as 'the workman'] who was working as a Conductor in the Appellant -Corporation. The 1st Respondent is the wife of the workman, the 2nd Respondent is the mother and Respondent Nos.3 to 6 are his children.

(2.) THE Respondents made a claim before the Commissioner under Section 3 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') seeking compensation from the Appellant on the ground that the workman had died in an accident that has occurred in the course of employment under the Appellant. According to the respondents, while the workman was working at Chittapur under the appellant as a Conductor in the vehicle belonging to the appellant on 19th January 2001 while he was plying on the route Tuljapur to Chittapur, he developed chest pain; and when the same was informed to the driver of the bus, the driver stopped the bus at Naladurg Bus stand and admitted him to the Ashwini Nursing Home which is close to Naladurg Bus stand and he died in the hospital on account of heart - attack. It is the case of the respondents that on the date of death the workman was 35 years of age and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 4,731/ - (Rupees four thousand seven hundred thirty one) and all the respondents were entirely depending upon his income for their livelihood. However, the appellant resisted the claim of the respondents inter alia contending that the workman did not die on account of the personal injury caused to him in an accident that had arisen out of and in the course of the employment. According to the stand taken by the appellant, the death on account of heart attack taking place in the course of the employment cannot be treated as an accident that takes place in the course of employment to attract Section 3 of the Act. However, the Commissioner on the basis of the materials on record, has found that the workman died on account of heart attack, which he suffered in the course of his employment as a conductor of the vehicle belonging to the Appellant.

(3.) HOWEVER , Sri S.S. Sajjanshetty, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, strongly supporting the impugned order, pointed out that the word 'accident' employed in Section 3 of the Act, keeping in mind the object of the legislature, must be interpreted as any untoward incident or any unexpected incident taking place during the course of employment. According to him, the workman suffered heart attack while he was travelling in the bus as a Conductor during night -time on account of the pressure and fatigue of the work and the strain of travelling. According to the learned Counsel, stress and strain, both physical and mental, is one of the causes for heart -attack. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay Vs. Mrs. Agnes, AIR 1964 SC 193 and the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Kamala V. Sri S.R. Varadaraja Setty, MFA No. 2422 of 1992 , dd on 31st March 1997 and also Division Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Devshi Bhanji Khona V. Mary Burno And Anr. 1985 ACJ 299 He also referred to us the meaning of the word 'accident' as set out in Chambers 21st Century Dictionary.