P.L. RATHOD Vs. SHANTILAL SHIPPING SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellants, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17.3.2004 passed by the ex officio Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Judge, Labour Court, Jamnagar in Workmen's Compensation (Fatal) Case No. 29 of 1993 (Old No. 16 of 1989), have approached this Court challenging the said judgment and order on various grounds. The Commissioner, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, was pleased to dismiss the application preferred by the present applicants by the impugned judgment and order and hence, this appeal, under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

(2.) Heard, learned Counsel Mr. D.V. Kansara for Mr. Premal Rachh, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. K.V. Gadhia, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the deceased was working as a Supervisor with the respondent No. 1 on 26.10.1988, which was never in dispute. That, during' the course of his employment, he met with an accident and received injuries and eventually, succumbed to the injuries. That, the deceased was hale and hearty at the time of accident, having no illness. That, though, the deceased was suffering from injuries and pain, he was not immediately shifted for treatment. That, PM Report was not clear about natural death of the deceased. That, the abrasion injuries were clearly shown in the PM Report. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has committed a grave error in not considering the deposition of wife of the deceased. Indisputably, the deceased was working as a workman in the ship, and thereafter, he died. That, it was not legal duty of the appellants to prove that the deceased workman was engaged in some exceptional work which placed excessive stress on the deceased so as to result in his death. That, the learned Court below has committed a grave mistake in not considering the case the applicants. That, the finding of the learned Court below after appreciating the PM Report that the deceased had not sustained any injury as no internal or external injury was found on the body of the deceased was contrary to the facts of the case. That, it was clearly proved by the applicants that during the course of employment, the deceased was working as a workman and met with an accident and injuries were received and died. That, the learned Court below has committed error in dismissing the petition preferred by the appellants-claimants and hence, it was requested by the learned Counsel for the appellants to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17.3.2004 by allowing this appeal.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that there being no error in the reasoning adopted and the findings arrived at by the learned Court below, the learned Court below has rightly dismissed the petition as the appellants - applicants were clearly failed to prove the aspect of injuries received by the deceased during the course of employment. It is further submitted that mere death of a workman would not sufficient to cover the case under section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. That, there must be clear link between the causal connections of employment with death. That, no evidence was led by the applicants to prove that due to the accidental injury received by the deceased during the course of employment, he had succumbed to such injuries. That, PM Report produced on record was completely silent about the cause of death. That, other documents produced on record clearly established that it was natural death and no injuries, external or internal, were received by the deceased. That, on deceased complaining about abdominal pain while he was on ship, he was immediately shifted for treatment at Irvin Hospital, Jamnagar and during the course of treatment, he was expired. That, the applicants have failed to establish that death of the deceased had been caused due to accidental injuries received by the deceased. That, no presumption can be made that the accident had occurred and injuries were sustained by the deceased. That, learned Court below has committed no error in absence of any cogent evidence led by the applicants, establishing their case. Hence, it was requested by learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 to dismiss the appeal. In support of his arguments, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another 2007 (112) FLR 203.