DURBSHAN B CURSEETJEES SONS KAKINADA Vs. D SESHARATHNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One D.Narayana Rao, foreman supervisor in the ship belonging the appellant sustained head injuries on May 1, 1976. He was admitted in the Government Hospital General Hospital at Kakinada. He was treated till May 6, 1976. Thereafter, he was discharged. He was under rest upto 15-3-1976 and then he joined duty. While on duty in the high-seas he died. Then the dead body was brought to shore and was handed over to the respondent. Subsequently she laid the claim under Sec. 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act). The competent authority awarded compensation of Rs.23,100/-.

(2.) The appellant resisted the claim contending that firstly he did not die due to any accident. He sustained fits and as a result, he died natural death. Therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation. Secondly, it is contended that he is only a casual worker under a contractor and the appellant is not liable. Thirdly, it is contended that there is no medical evidence connecting the cause of the death to the previous accident. Unless it is conclusively established that the death was the result of the injury to the head sustained by Narayana Rao on May 1, 1976, it cannot be said that he died during the course of the employment. All the three contentions were negatived by the original authority and the same have been repeated before me by Sri M.Panduranga Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant.

(3.) Sri Y. Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the fact that the deceased Narayana Rao sustained head injuries in an accident that occurred on May 1, 1976 is an admitted fact. Thereafter, he joined duty and he died while on duty in the high seas and the dead body was brought to the shore and was handed over to the respondent. Therefore, the deceased Narayana Rao died while on duty. The lower Court has drawn the inference from those facts and the lower Court is well justified. He further contended that the appellant is the principal employer and, therefore, he is liable to pay the compensation. With regard to the quantum also, the lower Court has taken all the factors into consideration and awarded compensation. Therefore, this is not a case for interference.