KAMALA SMT Vs. VARADARAJA SETTY S R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, from the judgment and order dated January 13, 1992, given by the Commissioner, Workmen's compensation, Kodagu, Medikeri District, rejecting the appellant/applicant's claim for compensation.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that one Babu as per claim of the petitioner/appellant who was the husband of the present appellant, was the workman/employee in the coffee estate by name Umashankara Estate at Anyathamangala which belonged to the respondent. The claim of the applicant has been that her husband, Sri Babu, on May 12, 1989, came to cheek roll. He was not feeling well but was directed and ordered by the respondent to unload the manure bags from the jeep and he did so and carried the bags of manure from jeep to store room. The claimant's case further has been that the said Babu felt chest pain at about 11. 00 a. m. At 3 p. m. Babu, the workman, was admitted in the Government Hospital, Siddapura, for the treatment of chest pain, etc. , and according to the claimants he suffered due to pressure of work, in course of loading and unloading of manure bags and later on May 17, 1989, the said Babu, the workman, died. The claimant' s/appellant's case has been that her husband, Babu, died on account of injury in the course of his employment and prayed for award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 39,338. The claimant in the claim petition further averred that her deceased husband was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 534. 82 at the rate of Rs. 14. 79 per day. The claim of the claimant was contested by the respondents in their written objections where the respondents/opposite party denied the allegations that Sri S. Babu was the permanent worker employed with the opposite party. It also alleged that it was false that S. Babu received personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment either on May 12, 1989, or on another day. In para 2 of the objections, it was stated that it is true that S. Babu died due to heart attack but it was asserted that the death of S. Babu had no nexus with employment or the accident as heart attacks are very common. The opposite party/respondent denied that the claimant/applicant has been a dependent of the deceased. The opposite party also denied the allegations. Their case was that he was working as a casual worker and had worked till the evening of May 11, 1989, and did not turn up thereafter. The opposite party further averred that on May 17, 1989, the opposite party in the evening learnt about the death of the said Babu and on humanitarian grounds he paid Rs. 100 to the wife of the deceased, viz. , the applicant to meet the immediate expenses.

(3.) THOUGH the respondent/opposite party denied the claim of the claimant/appellant, the commissioner, Workmen's Compensation framed the following issues : (1) Whether the deceased husband of the petitioner would come within the definition of workman within the meaning of Section 2 (n) of the Act of 1923. (2) Whether the petitioner's deceased husband died in the course of his employment in his coffee estate and during working hours. (3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation. (4) Hence, what is the decision of the Court.