KADAMBARI ENTERPRISES P LIMITED Vs. MALLIKESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the management of Kadambari Enterprises Private Limited, Madras-18. Is against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, made in W.C. Case No. 144 of 1986, dated January 13, 1988, awarding compensation of Rs. 55,652 to the first respondent, whose husband by name K. P Gopalakrishnan met with an accident on October 16, 1986, in the morning after the reported for duty of the appellant herein, and, consequently, for the reason of heart pain he was taken to the nearby Aswini Soundarya Nursing Home, where he got admitted and after six days, he has passed away in the hospital, which death of the person was due to cardiac arrest as evidence from exhibit A-3. The learned Deputy Commissioner held that the deceased, Gopalkrishnan, died due to an accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment under the appellant herein on October 16, 1986, and basing upon his wages at Rs. 1,000 per month as his age was 54 at that time, he has quantified the compensation at Rs. 55,652 payable by, the appellant herein and, consequently, after having deposited the entire compensation amount, the present appeal was filed and is being canvassed.

(2.) The employment provided to the deceased. Gopalakrishnan, by the appellant herein appears to have been not in dispute on the monthly wages of Rs. 1,500 payable and with regard to the same, there was a written agreement entered into between the employer and the employee, namely, the appellant and the deceased, exhibit A-1 is the copy of the said agreement which shows the responsibility and the mode of work assigned to the deceased to be carried on every day. Accordingly, it is noticed, the deceased though was designated as "sound recordist", his functioning of the duty has become so onerous in the sense that he is the brain behind the whole functioning system of the appellant herein and without his job and finish, the whole business transaction of the appellant would come to a standstill. Accepting the orders, setting up the instruments at their appropriate places, operating the same and recording the sound and so on effectively and efficaciously were the kinds of job assigned to the deceased, which naturally involves so much of mental strain, skill and talent. Admittedly, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 54. It is stated that on the morning October 16, 1986, immediately after a while of his reporting for duty, while in the course of employment, he complained of chest pain and for the immediate redressal he was taken to the nearby private nursing home by name Aswini Soundarya Nursing Home in the same locality and all kinds of treatment were given by the medicos for him and throughout he was getting medical aid under the constant monitoring of the doctors, but unfortunately, he breathed his last on the sixth day. Though, none of the doctors who attended the said person was examined, exhibit A-3 the certificate given by die doctor admittedly states that the said person died due to the cardiac arrest. On the basis of the said admitted facts his wife, Smt. Mallikeswari, filed petition for compensation under Section 10 of the Act. Relying on the said facts and after elaborate discussion, the learned Deputy Commissioner has accepted that the death of the said Gopalakrishnan was due to the accident happened on October 16, 1986, which was in the course of employment and that, therefore, as defined under Section 3 of the Act, the concept of "accident" was clearly established, and fixed the compensation.

(3.) Mrs. Rita Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would rest her attack by contending that the death of the employee was not due to any physical injury but, however, mainly due to the cardiac arrest as evident from exhibit A-3 on the sixth day and that, therefore, the absence of any physical injury goes a long way to warrant the concept of "accident" as provided under Section 3 of the Act and that, therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Deputy Commissioner, is not on par with the law and as such, it is liable to be interfered with in the appeal. Mr. S. Periasamy, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, on the other hand, supported the findings and contended that the learned Deputy Commissioner was justified in awarding the compensation.