THENGACKAL ESTATE Vs. REETHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 (for short 'the Act') against the order passed by 2nd respondent, Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kottayam in W. C. C. 58/1992. The 1st respondent has filed W. C. C. 58/92 as the widow of one Ramayya claiming compensation of Rs. 47,866. 28 on the ground that the death of her husband Ramayya occurred on account of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant. As per the impugned order, the 1st respondent was found to be entitled for a sum of Rs. 33,823/- as the compensation payable in respect of the death of Ramayya. The appellant has been made liable to pay the said compensation. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) ACCORDING to 1st respondent, deceased Ramayya was employed as a gardener in the small bungalow of the Assistant Manager of Thengackal Estate of which appellant is the Manager. While on duty on July 1, 1991 atabout 11. 30 a. m. deceased Ramayya felt chest pain and fell down, and breathed his last on his way to the hospital. It was alleged that at the time when he fell down due to chest pain, he was clearing the bushes and weeds from the court-yard with a spade. On post-mortem, cause of death was found to be asphyxia. Alleging that the deceased has died as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant, the 1st respondent has claimed compensation from the appellant, as employer to the extent of Rs. 47,866. 28.

(3.) THE Appellant as the 1st opposite party admitted that deceased Ramayya was a worker employed by them and that he died while on duty. However, the appellant contested the case on the ground that the cause of death of the deceased was heart-failure which had absolutely no causal connection with the work the said Ramayya was doing at the time of his death. It was contended that the death was on account of natural causes unconnected with his employment and therefore the death was not on account of any accident arising out of his employment. Accordingly, liability for payment of compensation was denied by the appellant.