IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND [2ND] DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.2175 of 2000 Between: The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Rep. by its Colliery Manager, Madaram … Appellant And: Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & 5 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.2175 of 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.04.1996 in WC.No.40 of 1995 on the file of the Commissioner for workmen’s compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Warangal, wherein the claim of the respondents 2 to 6 was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.78,824/-. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 2 to 6 herein filed claim application before the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation due to death of Laxmaiah, who was working as coal filler in the appellant company on 24.01.1994. The applicants 1 and 2 are the parents, 3rd applicant is the wife, 4th applicant is the son and 5th applicant is the daughter of the deceased Laxmaiah. According to the applicants, on 24.01.1994 the deceased attended to duty in the second shift and while he was on work, under the mine, he suffered heart attack due to stress and strain and adverse environmental conditions inside the mine and died of the same. It is further pleaded that the monthly wages of the deceased was Rs.3000/- and was aged 35 years at the time of the death. 4. The appellant herein filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation and further contended that the deceased did not die of any employment injury on account of any accident arising in the course of employment and he died only due to cardiac failure, which is natural cause. 5. During enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked on behalf of the applicants and on behalf of the appellant-company, RWs.1 and 2 were examined, but no documents were marked. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Commissioner held that the deceased died due to employment injury sustained in the course of the employment and therefore, the appellant is liable to pay the compensation. Learned Commissioner further awarded a sum of Rs.78.824/- by way of compensation taking the age and wages of the deceased into consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the Company. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the death of the deceased was due to natural cause i.e., cardiac failure and not on account of employment injury sustained by him in the course of employment. The finding of the Tribunal regarding the quantum of compensation is not seriously disputed. 7. The only question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the deceased died due to employment injury and in the course of employment? 8. It is not disputed that the deceased was workman and was employed as coal filler by the appellant-company and his place of work was inside the mine under the ground. It is also not disputed that on 24.01.1994 the deceased attended the duty in the second shift and while discharging his duties as coal filler underneath the mine, he suffered heart attack. According to the applicants, the heart attack was due to stress and strain and adverse environmental conditions obtaining inside the mine. Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Post-mortem certificate and Ex.P.3 death certificate would go to show that the deceased died due to cardiac arrest while he was on job in side the mine. PW.2 Dr. Krishna Murthy, Deputy Civil Surgeon, Community Hospital, Bellampally who conducted post-mortem over the body of the deceased testified that due to environment heat, or due to stress and strain and exhortation, the workers working in the underground may have heart attack diseases. In the cross-examination, he stated that there was no external or internal injury on the dead body. Simply because, there was no accident as such resulting in any external or internal injury on the person of the deceased, it cannot be said that the death was not due to any employment injury when it is found on evidence that the cardiac arrest which was the ultimate cause of death resulted from stress and strain and other adverse environmental factors operating inside the mine. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision in ‘Jyothi Ademma vs. Plant Engineer, Nellore[1]’ wherein the apex Court held that ‘accident’ means an untoward mishap, which is not expected or designed. ‘Injury’ means physiological injury. 10. In the above case it was brought on record that the deceased was suffering from chest disease and was previously treated for the same and the job of the deceased was only to switch on or off and therefore the doctor opined that there was no scope for any stress or strain in performing any duties. Even in the above case also a direction was given not to recover the amount from the claimant, though the claimant was held not entitled for any compensation. The above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that the deceased workman was actually working inside the mine as coal filler under adverse environmental conditions and the medical evidence on record shows that such exposure and stress and strain can lead to heart attack. Thus when it is shown that the deceased suffered heart attack on account of the stress and strain associated with the hard job which he was performing in the adverse environmental conditions, it is held that the death was on account of employment injury sustained in the course of employment notwithstanding the fact that there was no physical injury appearing on the person of the deceased. The stress and strain to which the deceased was exposed to while in job in side the mine would certainly lead to causing of physiological injury that may not be apparent externally but still lead to death of the deceased. 11. In ‘Depot Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar vs. Gurrapu Anjamma[2]’, this Court held that ‘if any person died as a result of heart-attack at the work spot, it can be said that he died due to stress and strain of the working conditions and therefore the legal representatives of such a person are entitled to claim compensation. If the death of the workman is natural death, his legal representatives are not entitled to claim any compensation under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act’. 12. The above decision was referred to in ‘Plant Engineer, Nellore Thermal station, Padugupadu vs. Jyothi Ademma’ [2004 LIC 315] cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, wherein, it was held on facts that the death was on account of natural cause. In the above case, no post-mortem was performed over the dead body and no other test was conducted to ascertain the cause of death and the evidence of doctor regarding the cause of death i.e., due to heart attack was found to be based only on guess work. It was also held that the claimant failed to establish that the death of her husband was un- natural death. The above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case where the evidence on record clearly established that the death was due to stress and strain while working under adverse environmental conditions inside the mine, which certainly amounts to employment injury. As the death is on account of such employment injury, the applicants are certainly entitled to claim compensation as the cardiac failure occasioned only on account of the stress and strain as per the medical evidence available on record. 13. For the reasons stated above, the impugned award passed by the learned Commissioner does not therefore call for any interference. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 02.12.2009 bss [1] 2006 ACJ 2165 [2] 1999 (6) ALD 101