SWAMALATA SAMAL Vs. CHOUDHURY KANDURI CHARAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Miscellaneous Appeal the legal heirs of deceased Rasananda Samal assail the correctness of the judgment of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act disallowing the claim of the appellants for compensation. Appellant No. 1, the wife of Rasananda claimed that on July 27, 1987 her husband, who was under the employment of the respondent M/s. Bajrang Stone Crushing Plant at Chadheid-hara, suffered from a reeling of head and fell down senseless. He was removed from the site to Jajpur Road Hospital and therefrom to SCB Medical College Hospital where in the night of July 28, 1987 he expired.

(2.) THE learned Commissioner on discussion of the witnesses on record rightly held that Rasananda was working as such with the respon-dent as on the date of alleged accident. But the learned Commissioner held that he did not die of an accident and since the evidence on record proved that he died of hypertension, this could not be said to be an accident arising out of and in course of his employment. Mr. G. P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously urged that this finding of the learned Commissioner is against the weight of evidence on record. Mr. Mohanty took this court to the evidence of PW. 2 who was the sole eye witness to the occurrence. I may examine the evidence of PW. 2 to find out the correctness of the submission of Mr. Mohanty.

(3.) PW. 2 stated that on the date of accident while the deceased was supervising the work he fell down suddenly and when he (PW. 2) and others asked him, the deceased replied as having a reeling of head. Thereafter they took him to his house. In the cross- examination that followed vide page 4, this witness stated that Rasananda used to supervise the work of labourers. There was no external injury at the time of his fall, but a wooden pole struck his head. This part of the evidence of PW. 2 that the wooden pole struck his head has not been discredited in the cross-examination nor the learned Commissioner has discussed as to why he discarded this part of the evidence of PW. 2 as untrue. It is common knowledge that in every case of an accident affecting any part of the human body there must be a corresponding external injury unless of course the assault is by any sharp cutting weapon. There have been instances though they may be cases few and far between that even without any visible external injury on the head, people have died of haemorrhage affecting the brain. There was nothing which prevented either the respondent or even the Commissioner to bring out on record by further cross examination of PW. 2 as to how and under what circumstances and in what manner the wooden pole struck the head of the deceased and as to why there was no visible injury on the head. It was wrong on the part of the Commissioner to draw an inference, that too without any medical opinion, that in the absence of an external injury on the head, the fact of accident itself should be disbelieved. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Rasananda while on duty met with an accident and a wooden pole struck his head. The finding of the learned Commissioner that there was no accident is set aside.