}. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.V M.A.fONO. $^-2? OF2008 APPELLANT CLAIMANT Smt. Girja Bai Wife of Danuram, Caste Halba, aged about 45 years, Resident of Village and Post Tarra, Tahsil and Police Station Gurur, ..^.i ..R.Na...........^.••;-*^-4-;>-l-:?"u ,.^ t, ^ri ..f^^"/1 DiStriCt Durg (C.G.). w&—^^^- l(ESPONDENTS 1. VERSUS The Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (Building/Division) Sub Division No.2 Balod, Tahsil, Police Station and Post Balod, District Durg (C.G.). . The Sub Divisional Officer, P.W.D. (Building/Divisjon), Sub Division No.2 Balod, Tahsil, Police Station and Post Balod, District Durg (C.G.). w-"" MEMO OFAPPEAL UNDERSECTION 30 OF THE WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 "' /'.. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C} No. 583 OF 2008 APPELLANT Claimant RESPONDENTS Smt. Girja Bai Versus The Executive Engineer, PWD & Others Memo of appeal under section 30 ofWorkmen's Compensation Act. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri PP Sahu, Advocate for appellant. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for State. ORALORDER (Passed on 2nd day of September, 2009) Heard on admission. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, (for short 'the Act') by one Smt. Girja Bai, claiming to be dependant upon the deceased Punia Bai, aged about 62 years, against the award dated 18.03.2008, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Durg, in case No. 136/2005/K- 1/BAA/.C. Act/Fatal, whereby and whereunder the Commissioner has dismissed the application ofthe claimant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the claimant, stating to be dependant upon the deceased Punia Bai (without mentioning under what capacity the claimant is dependant upon the deceased), preferred an application under section 22 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 2,67,750/- on account of sad demise of Punia Bai. 3. According to the claimant, the deceased was employed with the respondent as dailywager employee working as permanent II ejeqMou 'jeuoissiujuoo 941 ejo^eq iue||9dde 9qi Aq pejjepjd uopoiidde 9L(» u| ->|JOM p UIBJIS pue ssejis 01 anp GUIV.LUOA pooig p Ai!|iqissod Aue ino p9|nj OS|B 9H •>|oeue yeeii SBM pue jejnieu SBM ieg eiund P yieep eqi leq^eiqo uj uojieuiiJUBXQ ui pBie^s A||eouo6eiBO 9|-| 'iueiiedde QL|I Aq peuiuuexa SBM ieg eiund p lueijoijutsod pepnpuoo O^M 'feMpjeyg •s"y Ja •p9u6nduui PJBMB 9ill os|e pue pjoo9j uo etqeiieAe eouepiAe pue sSuipeaid 941 pesmad '^ue||9dde 941 joj 6uuB9dde (esunoo eqi pjeey 9Aeq | •uoi^eoiidde 941 pessiuusjp A|6uojM sey uoiiesueduuoo ueuu>|joAA -101 jeuoissjuuiuoo 941 ejojejeqi pue iu9UuAo|dai9 941 p 9jn»eu 941 ^IIM uojpeuuoo |enseo e peij leg eiund a»e| p yieep aqi leqi penSje Aiiueue^QA 'iueuuieio 941 joj Suueedde lesunoo peujeei 'nijes ULIS •uojieoiidde 9L|) pessiiusip pue 'iu9LuAo|duu9 p esjnoo 941 6uunp pue p ^no Suisue pejjnooo leg ei.und p qieep eqi ys^} eAojd 01 pa||B^ seq ^ueuuiep ley^ p|9q 'seiyed sqi p suoissiuuqns pue 'pjooej eqt uo 9|qe|!BAe (BueieLU Q{^ 'seiyed 941 Aq p9| aouapi.Ae aiii p Auiimos 9so|o uo 'U9Uj>|jo/v\ -10^ jeuoissjuuiuoo SLII •pessiLUSi.p eq ot 9|qei| si uoiieoi.idde J9l| 'PV 941 ^O (P) Z uoipes p sijujei uj luepuedep 941 Buieq »ou 'iueijedde e^ teyi luepuodsej 941 Aq peuiujqns jeqyn^ SBM II •iu9iuAo|duje p ssjnoo ei|i 6uunp pue jo ino esoje luepiooe Aue uj pei.p ieg eiund leqi pe^ eqi peiuep pue jeuoissjuuoo eqi ejo^eq lueueieis uewuM Jieyi p9|y luepuodsej eqi 'lueuAoidue p ssjnoo 9i|i 6uunp pue p ^no asoje luepiooe <>|oe»e yeey 01 enp p9jp 943 '9003'90'60 "O 'ueuSueo @ has been mentioned that said heart attack occurred due to stress and strain ofwork. 8. The Commissioner for Workmen, after appreciating the evidence of the Doctor examined; statement of appellant and other appellant's witnesses, held that the said heart attack did not occur due to stress and strain of work, the same was natural, and dismissed the application. 9. Only because a person dies of heart attack, the same does not give rise to automatic presumption that the same was by way of accident. A person may be suffering from a heart disease although he may not be aware of the same. The evidence of Doctor examined by the appellant did not support the fact that the said heart attack occurred or aggravated due to stress and strain of work. On thecontrary, the Doctor, in his statement, has stated that the death was natural. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Another, reported in 2007 (11) SCC 668, in para 36 held that only because the cause of death was due to heart attack, the same by itself may not be a ground to arrive at a conclusion that an accident had occurred resulting in injury. The Supreme Court furtherheld in para 38 that "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 grantdamages....." 11. In view of the legal proposition settled by Supreme Court in the above referred case, and in view of the facts and circumstance of the case, 1 have no hesitation to hold that the appellant has 12. failed to demonstrate that there is any casual connection between the injury and the accident and the work done in the course of employment. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises in this case for determination. The appeal, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed at motion stag Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Sahu