DEVSHI BHANJI KHONA Vs. MARY BURNO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent, the widow of one Shri Burno, filed an application, W.C.C. No. 356 of 1978, before the respondent, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ernakulam, claiming compensation under S 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act), from the appellant, on the allegation that her husband who was a headload worker, in the employment of the appellant, died on 2-5-1974, due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. That the 1st respondent's husband was an employee under the appellant who was during the material time a Shipping, Clearing and Forwarding Agent at Cochin, and that be (the 1st respondent's husband) died on 2-5-1974, are facts admitted by the appellant. The only question that required decision by the 2nd respondent was whether the death of the Ist respondent's husband was due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

(2.) The second respondent Commissioner had initially passed orders dismissing the application. This court, however, in appeal, set aside that order and remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent Commissioner for fresh disposal according to law, and in the light of the observations contained in that judgment. The 2nd respondent Commissioner, after the remand, having allowed the application as prayed for, this appeal has been preferred by the employer, who figured as the opposite party in the application before the 2nd respondent. At the time when the appeal was admitted, this Court had allowed the 1st respondent to withdraw Rs. 5,000/-out of the sum of Rs. 10,000/-deposited by the appellant towards the compensation allowed in favour of the Ist respondent by the 2nd respondent.

(3.) On the side of the applicant before the Commissioner, Ww. 1 to Ww. 5 were examined and the medical certificate, Ext. W1 marked. On the side of the opposite party, Ow. 1 to Ow. 4 were examined and Exts O1 to O4 were marked. The most important piece of evidence in the case was that of the co-worker of the husband of the 1st respondent herein. According to him, on 2-5-1974, there was urgent shipment and the Ist respondent's husband was carrying the cashew boxes even forgoing his lunch interval; it was a very hot day; and the workman who was already suffering from heart disease fell down while on work. Following this he died.