ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. CHINNAPILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Periyasamy, who was working as a permanent employee in the second respondent Tea Estate died on 1.7.1999. On 1.7.1999, at 10.45 a.m., when Periyasamy was working in the Estate by plucking tea leaves, he developed chest pain and the Supervisor called for an ambulance and Periyasamy was taken to Mudis Garden Group Hospital. When they reached the hospital, the Doctor examined the said Periyasamy and declared that he had died. The wife of the deceased Periyasamy filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour on the above narrated facts stating that her husband was aged about 48 years at the time of death on 1.7.1999, and he had died in the course of employment and due to stress of employment and entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

(2.) THE claim was resisted by the Insurance Company, the appellant herein. THE Insurance Company, the second opposite party before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour filed a counter statement stating that the death was a natural cause which is stated as "Myocardial Infarction". Several other contentions were also raised.

(3.) THE appellant aggrieved by the finding of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour has challenged the award on the ground that the deceased did not suffer any injury and there was no accident. THErefore, the deceased did not die in an accident in the course of employment and the death was not out of employment. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2007-1-L.W. 601) Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & another stating that there is no causal connection between the death and the employment. No accident occurred during the course of employment causing the death of the deceased. THEre is no evidence brought on record to show that the deceased died due to stress and strain of work in the course of employment. THE appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-