IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A No.2753 OF 2000 Between:- Lingamaneni Rama Devi …Appellant A n d Ch.Chandra Sekhara Rao and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.2753 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 26-03-1996 in W.C.No.177 of 1993, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Eluru, wherein the claim of the appellant was dismissed. 2. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant are heard. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the records. 3. The appellant filed claim application before the learned Commissioner seeking compensation of Rs.1 lakh on account of death of her son L.Venkateswara Rao, who died at Bombay. According to the applicant, the deceased was working as a driver in the lorry bearing AP 36 T 1917 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent and that he went to Bombay on the lorry and died there during the course of employment. Even according to the applicant, the dead body of the deceased was found on a railway track at Bombay and it was brought to L.T.M.G.Hospital on 21-12-1992 and the same was intimated to the claimant. The deceased was stated to be aged 22 years. 4. The respondents opposed the claim, denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the applicant. R.W.1, the Assistant Administrative Officer of the insurer, was examined and no documents were marked on their side. 6. The learned Commissioner by the impugned order held that the claimant failed to establish that the driver died due to accident in the course of employment and accordingly the claim application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the applicant. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant- applicant would vehemently contend that at the time the deceased went to Bombay on duty, in the course of employment, there were communal riots taking place and the deceased became a victim of the attack during the said riots and died and, therefore, his death occurred only during the course of employment. 8. In support of his claim, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision in M/s GURUNATH AND APPARAO LTD., V. GINNI GANNEMMA[1], wherein the workman died while chasing some persons who were tampering and pillaging salt pans during the routine check up of salt beds. Therefore, it was held that chasing was contributory to the cause of death. 9. I n T.N.C.S.CORPORATION LTD., V. POOMALAI[2], the workman died while he was on his way to the mill for attending to his duties and was murdered in communal riots. It was held that the incident arose out of and in the course of employment. Therefore, the legal heirs of the workman were entitled for compensation. 10. In STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. RAM PRASAD AND ANOTHER[3], the workman died in the course of employment on account of natural force i.e., lightning and, therefore, the legal heirs were held entitled to claim compensation on the ground that the concept of liability under the Act is wide enough to cover a case of that nature inasmuch as death had taken place as a result of accident in the course of employment. In the above decision, it was further observed that it is no doubt true that the accident must have a casual connection with the employment and arise out of it. 11. In ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., V. VEENA SETHI[4], the driver while returning after delivery of goods was killed by someone, it was held that the driver was discharging his duties on behalf of the employer and the very nature of employment made imperative for him to drive the vehicle and put it at the spot where he was killed and, therefore, the accident occurred in the course of employment. 12. I n KOTHARI GROUP OF FINANCIERS V. K.MURALIDHAR[5], the Manager of the finance company was attacked by the guarantor with knife resulting in loss of index finger and left thumb leading to 100% loss of earning capacity, it was held that there was a direct nexus between the attack and the person who attacked because the assault was due to the performance of an official act of seizure of the vehicle by the manager under the instructions of the employer. 13. None of the above decisions is applicable to the facts of the present case. No doubt the evidence on record would show that the deceased was working as a driver on the lorry bearing AP 36 T 1917 belonging to the first respondent and that he went to Bombay in connection with employment as a driver of the said lorry in December, 1992. His dead body was found on a railway track and was brought to L.T.M.G Hospital on 21-12-1992. The cause of death is not known and nothing is placed on record to show as to under what circumstances and for what reason the deceased died. In the claim application what all pleaded is that while the deceased was discharging his duties, some miscreants murdered him at Bombay and put the dead body on the railway track. Nothing is placed on record to show whether any investigation was done into the cause of death and the result of any such investigation. No copy of the F.I.R or inquest report or post-mortem certificate is produced before the Court to show prima facie as to the cause of death of the deceased. The contention of the learned counsel that the deceased died because of communal riots that took place in Bombay at that time, does not have any basis in the pleadings as no such averment is made in the claim application nor any evidence adduced in that regard. There is no evidence as to when the deceased left for Bombay and on what job and for how long he was to remain there and when the death took place and under what circumstances. In other words, there is no iota of evidence to show that the deceased died in the course of employment or while discharging his duties. What all the material on record shows is that the deceased went to Bombay as driver of the lorry in connection with his employment and his dead body was found there. There is, however, nothing to show that the deceased met with death in the course of such employment or while discharging his duties. Before claiming compensation under the provisions of the Workmen’s Act, the claimant has to necessarily establish that the death of the deceased occurred on account of accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Section 3(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act lays down – if any personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer is liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Chapter. The basic requirement to be satisfied before taking any claim for compensation under the provisions of the Act is that the death resulted on account of injury sustained in the accident arising out of and in the course of employment. In the present case, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the deceased met with any accident arising out of or in the course of employment and died on account of injury sustained in the accident. 14. The impugned order of the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, dismissing the claim application, does not, therefore, call for any interference by this Court. 15. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 16th November 2009. Lrkm. [1] 1980 ACJ 458 [2] 1996 ACJ 273 [3] (2001) 9 SCC 395 [4] 2002 ACJ 843 [5] 2005 ACJ 1014