THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CMA No.1034 of 2010 Date:09.2.2011 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep by its Deputy Manager, Secunderabad. Appellant. And Smt. Zubeda Begum and another. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CMA No.1034 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the Award dated 9.06.2010 passed in W.C.No.21 of 2008 (W.C No.51 of 2007-ACL-III) on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Hyderabad (herein after referred to as ‘the Lower Authority’). 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The 1st respondent herein before the lower Authority is the claimant. The claimant is the wife of Md.Rafiq, who is referred to as the deceased herein after. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the auto bearing No.AP 13V 1743. The claimant filed an application claiming compensation for the death of the deceased inter alia contending that the deceased was Workman employed by the 1st respondent for driving the auto and that on 4.4.42006, while the deceased was performing the duties as the driver of the said auto, he died due to heart attack, at about 7.00 p.m., on the same day near M.C.H Park, Rahimpura. It is also the case of the claimant that the deceased had been performing his duties continuously since morning and therefore he was under stress and strain and due to that stress and strain, he developed heart attack. It is also her case that the deceased was aged about 57 years and earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Thus, she claimed a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 3. The 1st respondent remained exparete before the Lower Authority then the 2nd respondent filed a counter and disputed the averments of the claimant with regard to the age, occupation and cause of his death etc. 4. On behalf of the claimant, the claimant herself was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked and on behalf of the respondents, the 2nd respondent was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. 5. The Lower Authority, on appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the deceased was driving the auto on the date of the accident and that he suffered internal injury during the course of his employment, resulting in his death, and, therefore, the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimant, and, therefore, the Tribunal awarded compensation at Rs.2,17,134/- and directed the respondents to pay the same within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of that order. 6. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that the claimant failed to prove that the deceased was on duty as on the date of his death and that the death was caused due to stress and strain during the course of his employment. It is also contended that the deceased was patient of chronic heart decease and that decease suffered by the deceased does not fall under occupational deceases as shown in Schedule III of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 7. The claimant, who was examined as A.W.1, categorically stated that her husband was working as driver on the auto baring No. AP 13V 1743 under the 1st respondent and that while he was discharging his duties on the said auto, he died on 12.4.2006 due to heart attack. It is also her case that her husband was driving the auto continuously from morning on that day. 8. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the final result, dated 28.7.2006, filed under 173 Cr.P.C by the Mangalhat Police Station before the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad, which reveals that the deceased was working as an auto driver on the auto bearing No. AP 13V 1743. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the inquest report contents of which show that the occupation of the deceased was shown as auto driver on the auto bearing No. AP 13V 1743 in Ex.A3. Thus, it is clear that the deceased was driving the auto as on the date of the accident. The evidence of A.W.1 the wife of the deceased show that the deceased had been driving the auto since morning on that day. It is clear from the evidence that the deceased died due to heart attack. He was driving the auto on that day since morning. It cannot be said that driving continuously does not result in stress and strain, such type of work would certainly aggravate the decease. Death of deceased is appears to be as a result of injury caused during the course of employment. Moreover, all the injuries need not be as a result of occupational deceases as enumerated in Schedule III of the Act. Schedule III of the Act deals with occupational deceases. The Act covers and mainly intended to cover, the accidents that occur during the course of employment i.e., while the workman is on duty, besides the deceases caused as a result of occupational hazards. It is true that in Ex.A4, it is mentioned that the death of the deceased was due to chronic heart decease. But even then when the stress and strain caused due to work aggravated the decease the same amounts to an accident. The Lower Authority has considered the rival contentions and discussed the entire evidence and case law in proper perspective, I do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Lower Authority. Even, if it is accepted that the deceased was suffering from heart decease, but when the evidence shows that he was driving the auto since morning, it appears that the stress and strain caused due to continuous driving might have accelerated his death and it is settled law that when the stress and strain caused during the course of employment accelerated the death, the same amounts to an accident. 9. In view of the same, I do not see any grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Lower Authority. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:09.2.2011 mrb