- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.569/2007 & FIRST APPEAL (St) NO.17813/2007 FIRST APPEAL NO.569/2007 Dr.Ramesh Shrikrishna Saraf, age 59 yrs., occu.medical practitioner, r/o Yawal Tq.Yawal Dist.Jalgaon. ..Appellant.. (Org.res.no.1) Versus 1. Smt.Ashabai Vasant Gopal, age 28 yrs., 2. Kum.Ghaya Vasant Gopal, age 3 yrs., 3. Kum.Jaya Vasant Gopal, age 5 yrs., 4. Kum.Gaya Vasant Gopal, age 2 yrs., (Res.no.1 is the mother of the res.nos.2 to 4) - 2 - 5. Sau.Parvatabai Mansaram Gopal, age 50 yrs., 6. Shri Mansaram Puna Gopal, age 60 yrs., 7. Shri Tukaram Mansaram Gopal, age 25 yrs., Respondent nos.1 to 7 are residing at Vavadada Tq.Jalgaon Dist.Jalgaon. 8. Shri Vishwanath Ramchandra Chaudhari, age - occu.agri., r/o Deshmukh Wada, Yawal Tq.Yawal Dist.Jalgaon. 9. Shri Vinayak Bapu Chavan, age - , occu.contractor r/o Vavadada Tq. & Dist.Jalgaon. ..Respondents.. (Nos.8 & 9 – org.res.nos.2 & 3) Shri M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for appellant. Shri J.R. Shaikh, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 7. Shri V.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.8. Shri V.Y. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.9. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= FIRST APPEAL (St) NO.17813/2007 Vinayak s/o Bapu Chavan, age 40 yrs., occu.nil, r/o Vavadada Tq. & Dist.Jalgaon. ..Appellant.. (Org.res.no.3) - 3 - Versus 1. Ashabai Vasant Gopal, age 32 yrs., occu.household, 2. Kum.Ghaya Vasant Gopal, age 7 yrs., occu.nil, 3. Kum.Jaya Vasant Gopal, age 6 yrs., occu.nil, Respondent no.1 for herself and for res.nos.2 & 3. 4. Sau.Parvatabai Mansaram Gopal, age 54 yrs., occu.household, 5. Mansaram Puna Gopal, age 64 yrs., occu.nil, 6. Tukaram Mansaram Gopal, age 29 yrs., occu.nil., 7. Kum.Gaya Vasant Gopal, age major, occu.nil, 8. Dr.Ramesh Shrikrishna Saraf, r/o at Po.Tq.Yawal Dist.Jalgaon. 9. Vishwanath Ramchandra Chaudhary, r/o Deshmukhwada, at Po.Tq.Yawal Dist.Jalgaon. ..Respondents.. (Nos.1 to 7 – org.applicants. Nos.8 & 9 – org.res.nos.1 & 2) - 4 - WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7130 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2007 Smt. Asha Vasant Gopal .. Applicant VERSUS Dr. Ramesh Shrikrishna Saraf and ors. .. Respondents ..... Shri V.Y. Patil, Advocate for appellant. Shri J.R. Shaikh, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 7. Shri M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for respondent no.8. Shri V.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.9. ..... CORAM: A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE: 25.09.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1] Both these appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment as they arose from one judgment and award. The facts leading to the litigation are as under: It would be better if the parties are referred to by their designations in the lower Court. - 5 - 2] The respondent nos.1 to 7 in First Appeal No.569/2007 were the original claimants and legal heirs / representatives of one Vasant Gopal. The appellant in First Appeal No.569/2007 was original respondent no.1 and the respondent nos.8 & 9 in First Appeal No.569/2007 are the respondent nos.2 & 3. The respondent no.1 is owner of certain land situated at Yawal Shivar Tq.Yawal Dist.Jalgaon. He had handed over the land for cultivation purpose to the respondent no.2 @ Rs.24,000/- per year as compensation(Batai). The respondent no.2 engaged services of the respondent no.3, a contractor, for digging a well in the land. One Vasant Gopal was husband of the claimant no.1, father of the claimant nos.2 to 4, son of the claimant nos.5 & 6 and brother of the claimant no.7. It is the case of the claimants that Vasant was an employee of the respondent no.3 and was working as labourer for the boring work of the well. On 2.5.2003 at about 10 a.m., Vasant entered the well for the bore-well work, he suffered chest pain, and was brought immediately to the ground level where he died due to heart attack. It is the case of the claimants that Vasant died due to the accident that arose out of and in the course of his - 6 - employment and so the respondent nos.1 & 2, the owner and Bataidar of the land, were liable to pay them compensation. They, therefore, filed the Workmen Compensation Application No. 54/2003 in the Labour Court at Jalgaon u/s 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 read with Rule 20 of the Rules. The respondent nos.1 & 2 filed their written statement and denied the relationship with the deceased Vasant being their employee. They, however, did not deny the fact that the respondent no.3 was engaged as contractor for digging of the well and that Vasant died of heart attack. The respondent no.3 in his written statement took up a different stand. He denied having any connection with Vasant. He stated that Vasant had come at the well at the relevant time to meet the labourers engaged by him for digging of the well. He further stated stated that while Vasant was standing outside the well under a tree, he suffered heart attack and succumbed to it soon thereafter. The learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Judge of the Labour Court, Jalgaon, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence and came to a conclusion that the claimants had proved that Vasant met with an accident arising out of and during the course of his employment. He further held - 7 - that he was in the employment of the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3. He awarded Rs.2,40,266=25 as compensation, which he made payable by the respondent nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. 3] As mentioned above, the respondent no.1 filed First Appeal No.569/2007 against this judgment, whereas the respondent no.3 also filed First Appeal (St) No.17813/2007. After hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, following substantial questions of law arose for my consideration in these appeals. [1] Whether Vasant's death was caused due to an accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment ? [2] Whether Vasant was in employment of the respondent nos.1 & 2 ? 4] Relevant portion of Section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, reads as under: “3. Employer’s liability for compensation : (1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that the employer shall not be so liable - (a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days; (b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death or permanent total disablement, caused by an accident which is directly attributable to - (i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or - 8 - (ii) the willful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or (iii) the willful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen.” In view of this provision, it is clear that it was the claimants’ primary responsibility to prove that Vasant died due to an accident that arose out of and in the course of employment. Before I decide this, I should also make it clear that there was a dispute between the parties as to whether Vasant was in employment of the respondent no.3 and whether he was working inside the well when he suffered chest pain etc. The respondent no.3 tried to contend that he was not working with him and that he had come there casually to see his friends. The learned Judge of the Labour Court rejected this defence. It was held that Vasant was in the employment of the respondent no.3. I endorse this finding. The circumstances and the evidence on record clearly prove this fact. As said above, the death on the spot at the relevant time and due to heart attack has not been denied at all. Immediately after this ghastly incident, the same was reported to the local police. It has come on record that the respondent no.3 informed this fact to the respondent no.2, who in turn informed it to the police. The police recorded the respondent no.2’s - 9 - statement, which they treated as first information regarding the accidental death. In this statement, copy of which is on record, the respondent no.2 clearly stated that he had undertaken the work of digging of well and that he had given the work contract to the respondent no.3 and the deceased Vasant was working as labourer at the site and he was an employee of the respondent no.3. He even stated that the information of death was given to him by the respondent no.3. In the background of this information, which came to be recorded immediately after the incident, one has to appreciate the stand taken by the respondent no.3. The stand of the respondent no.3 in this background is palpably false. It is not only the respondent no.3, who entered the witness box to state on oath this falsehood, but he even persuaded one of his employees Dhansing to support him in the false stand he had taken. Dhansing stated on oath that at the relevant time, he was doing boring work of the well. He stated that Vasant was his friend and had come to the spot to meet him. He stated that Vasant was outside the well, etc. In the background of the F.I.R., the inquest panchanama and spot panchanama, the depositions of both – the respondent and his witness Dhansing, are palpably false. Therefore, there is no - 10 - difficulty in coming to a conclusion that the deceased Vasant was working under the respondent no.3. 5] Having come to this conclusion, there is no difficulty further to hold that Vasant died due to the accident that occurred during the course of his employment. It has come in evidence that Vasant, while he was working inside the well, suffered heart attack; due to pain he shouted and seeing him in pain, his co- workers hurriedly brought him up on the ground level with the help of a vehicular tyre tied with rope. So, it is clear that while Vasant was doing his work, he suffered a heart attack and he died almost instantaneously on the spot. 6] The only difficult question in this case is whether Vasant died due to an accident that “arose out of” his employment. Before I discuss this aspect, I would like to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti V/s Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & another [ 2007 (1) Bom.L.C., 605 a(SC) ]. The Supreme Court held that for attracting the charging provision contained in Section 3 of the Act, following aspects are necessary: - 11 - [1] an injury must be caused to a workman; [2] such injury must have been caused by an accident; and [3] it arose out of or in the course of his employment. The first requirement is already fulfilled and discussed above that Vasant was a workman as defined by Section 3. The second requirement is that Vasant ought to have died due to an injury, which was caused by an accident. The question is whether sufferance of heart disease at the relevant time is an accident. The word “accident” is not a technical legal term with a clearly defined meaning. An accident means any unintended and unexpected occurrence, which could hurt someone physically or which could result into loss to property etc. The word “accident” also denotes an unintended and unexpected incident that causes loss or injury. In this case, the incident of heart attack caused to Vasant was clearly an accident. It is an admitted fact that Vasant was 27 years old person. There is nothing on record to show that he had any history of heart disease or that he was indisposed prior to the incident due to any ailment etc. The heart attack, thus, was an unexpected event. The contents of F.I.R. show that after Vasant was brought on the ground level, the respondent no. 3 asked him to wear clothes so that he would take him to hospital - 12 - etc., but Vasant, before he could take further steps, collapsed and within couple of minutes, he succumbed. The suddenness of the heart attack, thus, was clearly an accident. As stated above, the next requirement was that the accident took place in the course of his employment, has been discussed and it has been held that the accident took place in the course of Vasant’s employment. The only question that remains for discussion is whether Vasant died due to an accident that 'arose out of his employment'? The Supreme Court, in the above mentioned judgment, laid down following principles on this point. They are as under: ..“20. The principles are : [1] There must be a causal connection between the injury and the accident and the accident and the work done in the course of employment. [2] The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the work and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated the injury. [3] If the evidence brought on records establishes a greater probability which satisfies a reasonable man that the work contributed to the causing of the personal injury, it would be enough for the workman to succeed, but the same would depend upon the fact of each case.” --“24. In a case of this nature to prove that accident has taken place, factors which would have to be established, inter alia, are : [1] stress and strain arising during the course of employment. [2] nature of employment. [3] injury aggravated due to stress and strain.” --“33. Unless evidence is brought on record to elaborate that the death by way of cardiac arrest has occurred because of stress or strain, the Commissioner would not have jurisdiction to grant damages. In other words, the claimant was bound to prove jurisdictional fact before the Commissioner. Unless such jurisdictional facts are found, the Commissioner will have no jurisdiction to pass an order. It is now well-settled that for arriving at a finding of a jurisdictional fact, reference to any precedent would not be helpful - 13 - as a little deviation from the fact of a decided case or an additional fact may make a lot of difference by arriving at a correct conclusion. For the said purpose, the statutory authority is required to pose unto himself the right question.” In view of the above principles, it was necessary for the claimants to prove 'causal connection' between the accident and the work done in the course of employment. It was also necessary for them to prove that it was the work resulting strain, which contributed to the heart attack. In order to prove that stress and strain arising during the course of employment, they were under obligation to show as to what was the nature of the employment, how much stress and strain arose during the course of such employment. Unfortunately, the claimants’ evidence on this issue is not quite satisfactory. As discussed above, the principal claimant – the widow of Vasant, who recorded her deposition in support of the case, was not present on the spot when the incident took place. She, therefore, depended mostly on the documents those were scribed soon after the incident. She placed reliance on the first information report lodged with police, which was made basis for an inquiry of accidental death u/s 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She also placed reliance on the inquest, the spot panchanama and the post mortem report. Unfortunately, these documents throw very little light on the nature of employment, the stress and strain arising during such - 14 - employment and as to whether there was causal connection between the work done by Vasant and the sufferance of heart attack. But despite of this apparent lacunae in the evidence of the claimants, the claimants would succeed on this point. As mentioned above, Vasant was in employment of the respondent no.3. The respondent no.3 was present when the incident took place. Even the respondent no.3’s witness Dhansing was present when this incident took place. They were certainly aware as to what exactly happened when the incident took place. They were also aware as to the nature of employment of Vasant. They were further aware as to whether there was stress and strain arising from the work that Vasant was doing. The respondent no.3 had special knowledge about details of the incident. The claimants did not have such information and yet they were under obligation to prove how the incident took place. They were also under obligation to show as to how the nature of work caused stress and strain, which resulted into heart attack. This difficulty of the claimants can certainly be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur. In this case, I have no hesitation to say that all that the claimants have to prove is the fact that while Vasant was doing his work of digging of well, inside - 15 - a well, he suffered the heart attack. It would then be for the respondent no.3 to establish that the incident of heart attack did not occur due to stress and strain of the work Vasant was doing. In this regard, the learned Advocate appearing for the claimants rightly placed reliance on few circumstances that have come on record. When Vasant was working in the well, he had removed his formal clothes. He was working in a waist and a drawer. This indicates that Vasant was doing some physical work. He further brought to my notice that Vasant was working inside a well. He pointed out, although it is not on record as to how deep was the well, but it has come on record that with the help of a vehicular tyre tied with rope, Vasant was pulled out of the well. This indicates that the depth at which Vasant was doing his work was more than 6 ft. He further pointed out from the contents of the F.I.R. that Vasant was engaged in this work for almost three consecutive days. He, on this basis, argued that the conditions in which Vasant was working must have caused a lot of stress and strain on his physique. In this background, as said above, it was all the more necessary for the respondent no.3 to come out truthfully and narrate the details of the incident. Instead he took a dishonest and false stand. In my view, due to the failure of the - 16 - respondent no.3 to give details of the incident, adverse inference should be drawn against him and it must be held that Vasant died due to stress and strain of the work he was doing in the course of his employment. 7] Next important question is whether the deceased Vasant was in the employment of the respondent nos.1 & 2 also. In order to answer this question, the provisions of Section 12 are required to be seen, which are reproduced below. “12. Contracting : (1) Where any person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the principal) in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any workman employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that workman had been immediately employed by him; and where compensation is claimed from the principal, this Act shall apply as if references to the principal were substituted for references to the employer except that the amount of compensation shall be calculated with reference to the wages of the workman under the employer by whom he is immediately employed. (2) Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor, or any other person from whom the workman could have recovered compensation and where a contractor who is himself a principal is liable to pay compensation or to indemnify a principal under this section he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person standing to him in the relation of a contractor from whom the workman could have recovered compensation, and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. - 17 - (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a workman from recovering compensation from the contractor instead of the principal. (4) This section shall not apply in any case where the accident occurred elsewhere that on, in or about the premises on which the principal has undertaken or usually undertakes, as the case may be, to execute the work or which are otherwise under his control or management.” I have already discussed above that the respondent no.1 is admittedly the owner of the land in which the respondent no.2 had cultivation and it was the respondent no.2, who planned to dig a well in the land. It was the respondent no.3, who took contract of digging of the well. The question, therefore, is whether the respondent no.2 – the Bataidar and the respondent no.1 – the owner of the land, are liable to pay compensation for the accidental death of Vasant. In view of Section 12, I think the answer to this question is in negative. In this case, the respondent no.1 can not deny that he was aware of the fact that the respondent no.2 had started digging a well in his land. Digging up of a well in an agricultural land is an important event, not only because it costs a lot, but it becomes a permanent and immovable feature in the land. If the well provides water, it would benefit the user of the land tremendously. So, the respondent no. 1 – the owner of the land, can not plead ignorance of the fact that the respondent no.2 had started digging up the well without his knowledge. The respondent no.2 must have taken permission - 18 - from him for undertaking such a work of improvement in the land. Natural corollary to this logic is that the respondent nos.1 & 2 had engaged the respondent no.3 as contractor for the work of digging up of the well. The question still arises as to whether the respondent nos.1 & 2 would be affected by the mischief of the rule enumerated in Section 12. I think they would not. The respondent nos.1 & 2 used the land in question mainly for the purpose of cultivation and taking up crops. Thus, the ordinary part of their trade or business qua the land was cultivation of the land and related work. It can not be said that digging up of a well in the land was ordinary part of work relating to cultivation. As said above, digging up of a well is an important improvement work. An agricultural land is improved by undertaking major tasks, such as, leveling, bunding, digging well, laying down pipeline, constructing farm-house, store house or cattle shed, etc. Such works are generally not done by the cultivators or Bataidars. Being a specialized work, it is generally entrusted to a contractor, who possess skill in such work. It is, thus, clear that digging up of a well would not come within the four corners of provisions of Section 12. The learned Advocate appearing for the claimants - 19 - placed reliance on a judgment of our High Court in the case of Sarjeras Unkar Jadhav V/s Gurindar Singh & another [