M.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LEELABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:--

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the claim petition was filed by the respondent alleging that Sukhlal was the husband of respondent who was working as line inspector. It was alleged that on 3.11.1999 Sukhlal was on patrolling duty right from 6:30 A.M. It was alleged that because of extraneous work Sukhlal died. It was alleged that since the death occurred during course of employment, therefore, compensation be awarded. The claim petition was contested by the appellants on various grounds including on the ground that the appellants are not responsible for payment of compensation as the death is nothing to do with the job. It was prayed that the petition be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Court below allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,46,200/-, against which present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellants argued at length and submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that it was incumbent upon the claimant to establish that the death of deceased Sukhlal occurred due to stress and strain in discharge of the duly. It is submitted that since there is no evidence on record in this regard, therefore, learned Court below committed error in holding the appellants liable for payment of compensation. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, 2006 AIR(SC) 2830 wherein deceased was suffering from chest disease and was previously being treated for such disease and the job of the deceased was only to switch on or off as such there was no scope for any stress or strain in his duties, Hon'ble Apex Court held that death cannot be said to have been caused by any accident arising out of and in course of his employment, hence employer cannot be held to be liable to pay compensation, however, Hon'ble Apex Court directed that compensation already paid, should not be recovered. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shresti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali, 2007 112 FLR 203, wherein deceased suffered massive heart attack, Hon'ble Apex Court held that circumstances must exist to establish that death was caused by reason of failure of heart because of stress and strain of work. It was also held that unless evidence is brought on record to elaborate that death by way of cardiac arrest has occurred because of stress or strain. Commissioner will not have jurisdiction to grant damages. On the strength of aforesaid position of law learned Counsel submits that the appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below be set aside.