UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SUSHEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the insurance company. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31. 7. 2001 passed by the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation, Chickmagalur in W. C. A. CR No. 9 of 1997. The appellant has framed the following substantial question of law for consideration:

(2.) BRIEF facts for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as under: the husband of claimant No. 1 and the father of claimant Nos. 2 to 5 was employed by the respondent No. 1 (before the commissioner) as non-staff watchman. It is the case of the claimants that after completing the duty on 6. 6. 1994 when he was returning home he died due to sudden cardiac arrest and the said incident has arisen while he was on duty and during the course of his employment under the respondent no. 1. It is their case that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,250 per month and he was aged about 43 years. It is their case that due to untimely death of the main earning member of the family the claimants have become destitute and are unable to maintain themselves and earn their livelihood. Under these circumstances, the claimants sought compensation under the Act by making an application under section 23 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and rule 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924.

(3.) THE said claim of the claimants was resisted by the employer, respondent No. 1, inter alia, contending that the deceased chandru having died due to cardiac arrest on 6. 6. 1994 while returning to his house from duty is totally false and incorrect. It was further submitted that all the employees of the company would normally report for duty at 8 a. m. and thereafter the work will be assigned to each of the employee to take up the work on that particular day. However, they admitted that the deceased chandru had been employed as non-staff watchman and entrusted with the work of watch and ward in the premises of the respondent No. 1. They further denied that he was engaged as a watchman on 5. 6. 1994 and after his working hours while he was returning to his house he died due to cardiac arrest is emphatically denied as false and malicious. It is their case that deceased chandru had completed his work of watch and ward on 5. 6. 1994 and he appeared for muster roll on 6. 6. 1994 at 8 a. m. and reported to Assistant Manager and requested for compensatory holiday. The Assistant manager had granted the same and the employee was asked to avail the compensatory holiday. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that since the deceased chandru had availed the compensatory holiday and went back to his house to take fuel from the forest on 6. 6. 1994 which according to them clearly establishes that deceased Chandru did not die during the course of the employment at the time of the incident. It was their last contention that in the event that the Commissioner were to hold that the death had occurred during the course of the employment, since the estate was insured with the respondent No. 2 it was liable to satisfy the award passed, if any.