PARWATIBAI Vs. MANAGER RAJKUMAR MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, rejecting the claim of the appellant Parwatibai to compensation as the widow of one Kalu who was an oilman in the employ of the respondent.

(2.) THE appellant alleged that on 29-4-1954 Kalu was working as a substitute for a jobber and in the course of the work he was asked to do, ho had to mount a belt on a machine and start it and that while bolting the machine he received a jerk and a shock, and fell down and shortly afterwards) died of heart failure. The appellant claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,400/ -. These allegations were denied by the respondent, who stated that when he was in the Mill premises Kalu complained of pain in the chest; that thereupon he was taken to the Mill hospital for first aid and then removed to M. T. Hospital where he died; that Kalu's death was due to cardiac failure and that it was not due to any personal injury caused by any accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

(3.) THE appellant examined on her behalf two witnesses Bodya and Rewashankar to show that her husband Kalu received a jerk and shock while belting the machine and consequently fell down and died shortly afterwards. Bodya gave the evidence that on the morning of 20-4-1954, Kalu was on a plank about eight to ten feet above the ground trying to belt the machine and that he received a shock and fell down on the plank. The witness did not give any details of the shock and how it was received. He simply said that Kalu received a shock. He also gave no details as to the position, manner and place where according to him Kalu fell down after receiving the alleged shock. The Commissioner for Workmen's compensation found bodya's evidence difficult of acceptance when he admitted that though he was not very far from Kalu, when he fell down, he did not rush and go near him to render succour to him. Bodya also could not give the names of the persons who came to lift Kalu after as the witness said he fell down. The learned Commissioner thought that these statements of the witness cast a grave doubt on the version given by him as regards Kalu's death. The other witness Rewashankar admitted that he was unable to say how Kalu fell down. On the other hand, he made the statement in cross-examination that he had seen Kalu sitting on the plank and then lying down. The medical evidence, which was furnished by Dr. Narayan Prasad Dubey, did not also support the version that Kalu fell down from any plank as a result of a jerk and shock. On this evi-dence, the learned Commissioner found himself un-able to hold that Kalu's death was due to any personal injury caused by accident arising out of or in the course of his employment. The finding that Kalu did not receive any shock or jerk in an attempt to start tho machine and did not fall down on account of any such shock or jerk arrived at by the learned Commissioner is a finding of fact supported by evidence and has to be accepted in this appeal.