IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 MFA.No. 86 of 2011() -------------------- WCC.2/2007 of W.C.C.,KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT: ----------------------- M/S. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, NOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE SMT. INDUJA M.J. RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. AYISHABI, W/O. LATE ALIKUTTY, AMBALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. KUNNAMANGALAM, CHOOLAMVAYAL,KOZHIKODE-670645. 2. FOUZIYA, D/O. LATE ALIKUTTY, AMBALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. KUNNAMANGALAM, CHOOLAMVAYAL,KOZHIKODE-670645. 3. FIZAL, S/O. LATE ALIKUTTY, AMBALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. KUNNAMANGALAM, CHOOLAMVAYAL,KOZHIKODE-670645. 4. AMINA, W/O. MOIDEEN, AMBALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. KUNNAMANGALAM, CHOOLAMVAYAL,KOZHIKODE-670645. 5. M.K. BASHEER, S/O. MAMMILIKUTTY,M MALAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, P.O. KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE-670645. ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN FOR R1 & R2 SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN FOR R5 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.F.A.(W.C.Act) No. 86 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th September, 2011 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph J., The appellant is the second opposite party in a proceeding under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The claimants are the legal representatives of deceased Alikutty. The deceased was driver of a lorry and the case was that the first opposite party was the employer of the deceased workman. In an accident involving the lorry, the workman died. Accordingly the claim was filed. 2. The death of Alikutty was due to pulmonary adema due to left ventricular failure resulting from thromboses occlusion of the left anterior dexending coronary artery. In short, the death was due to heart attack. The Commissioner awarded M.F.A.(W.C.Act) No. 86 of 2011 :2: compensation by finding that he died of heart attack due to stress and strain of his work as a lorry driver and it was an accident occurred during and in the course of his employment. 3. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the claimants. 4. The two issues which were raised before the Commissioner and finding of the Commissioner are as follows: “(i) Whether the deceased is a workman under the Act? (ii) Whether the accident occurred during and in the course of his employment? Finding of the Commissioner: The case of the applicants were that the deceased was employed under first opposite party as driver in his lorry bearing Reg.No.KL/11/A/6406 and sustained personal injury by an accident on 20.7.2006 and succumbed to the injuries on the day itself from hospital. Applicant No.1 deposed in favour of their claim. Ext.A1 and A2 and oral testimony of AW2, M.F.A.(W.C.Act) No. 86 of 2011 :3: coworker corroborates the oral testimony of the applicant. First opposite party entered appearance through counsel before the court and abstained from contesting the case. It is presumed that he is admitting the claim. The contention of the opposite party no.2 was the death of the workman was natural and was not by an accident. Applicant deposed that that her husband, the deceased workman started his employment from 4 a.m. on the date of death. The stress and strain of the work was the reason for starting chest pain and it was started while he was driving the lorry. Ext.A2 proves that the deceased died due to pulmonary adema due to left ventricular failure resulting from thromboses Occlusion of the left anterior dexending coronary artery. Second opposite party failed to adduce any contra evidence to disprove the claim. In the circumstances I hold that the deceased worked under first opposite party in his lorry as driver and was a workman under Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and applicant died of heart attack due to stress and strain of his work as a lorry driver and it was an M.F.A.(W.C.Act) No. 86 of 2011 :4: accident occurred during and in the course of his employment on 20.7.2006 and succumbed to the injuries on the same day itself in the hospital.” 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the postmortem certificate would show, after referring to the cause which we have already adverted, that it is a case of natural death. He does not dispute that there was stress and strain in the work. The workman was aged 50 years. There is no previous history of the illness is not also in dispute by the learned counsel for the appellant. The workman was employed as a driver of the lorry and when he died of heart attack, he was in the middle of the employment. 6. As far as the question whether it should be treated as natural death only for the reason that it is so stated in the postmortem certificate, we are of the view that implication of the contents of the postmortem certificate that the death was a natural death essentially will not have bearing on the issue to be decided. The certificate will relate to any suspicion about the death of the M.F.A.(W.C.Act) No. 86 of 2011 :5: workman, and it is related to criminal liability. The significance of the word 'natural death' is that it would obviate the enquiry by the law enforcement authorities. 7. There is no other contention taken by the learned counsel for the appellant. We see no merit in the contentions raised by the appellant. The Appeal fails and accordingly the M.F.A. is dismissed. Sd/- K.M.JOSEPH, (JUDGE) Sd/- M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/ ///TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE M.F.A.(W.C.Act) No. 86 of 2011 :6: