KAMALA Vs. S R VARADARAJA SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 from the Judgment and Order dated 13-1-1992 given by Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Kodagu, Madikeri District rejecting 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 workmen/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 12-5-1989 came to checkroll. He was not feeling well but was directed and ordered by the respondents to unload the manure bags from the jeep and he did so and carried the bags of manure from jeep to store room. The claimants case further has been that 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 17-5-1989 said Babu the workman died. The claimant's/appellant's case has been that her husband babu died on account of injury in 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 monthly salary of Rs. 534. 82 @ 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 and in course of employment either on 12-5-1989 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 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 11-5-1989 and did not turn up thereafter. The opposite party further averred that on 17-5-1989 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. Though the respondent/opposite party denied the claim of the claimant/appellant, the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation framed the following issues:

(3.) I have heard Sri K. S. Gourishankar, Counsel for appellant and Sri giridhar holding brief for Sri M. B. Prabhakar, learned Counsel for respondent.