IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:27.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN CMA.No.2449/2006 MP.No.1/2006 Divisional Manager, M/s.Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai-14 Appellant Vs 1.Tmt.Naveetham 2.Minor Gokulraj 3.Minor Roshma 4.Tmt.Suseela 5.Tmt.R.Lakshmi (Minors RR2 & 3 rep by R1) Respondents Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 27.12.2005 made in WC.No.204/2005 by the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner II for Workmen's Compensation, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.K.S.Narasimhan For Respondent : Mr.P.Mani-RR1to4 JUDGEMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by M/s.Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Limited against the order dated 27.12.2005 made in WC.No.204/2005 by the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner II, for Workmen's Compensation, Chennai. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1.Whether the learned Commissioner has erred in holding that the deceased had sustained employment injury during the course and out of employment without appreciating the ruling of Apex Court? 2.Whether the learned Commissioner has erred in not observing the provisions of Section 5 of the WC Act or the GO.102 Labour and Employment for fixing the minimum wages? 3.Whether the learned Commissioner has erred in holding the appellant is liable to pay compensation including the funeral expenses? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.Whether the order of the learned Commissioner requires to be set aside or modified? However, it is suffice to answer the short question as to whether there was a casual connection between the employment and the death of the deceased employee. 3. The facts of the case are that the Respondents 1 to 4 herein lodged a claim petition before the Deputy Labour Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Chennai in WC.No.204/2005, claiming compensation on the ground that the 1st claimant being the widow and the remaining claimants being the children and mother of the deceased Velmurugan, who was an employee of the 5th Respondent, are entitled to claim compensation on account of sudden death of Velmurugan during the course of employment on 8.2.2005 at about 8.45 hours due to heart attack. 4. It is not in dispute that the deceased Velmurugan was working as a lorry driver in the lorry belonging to the 5th Respondent and at the time of death, he was on duty as a lorry driver proceeding to Arakonam from Tuticorin loaded with urea. While he was coming near Kakkilipettai, he complained chest pain to the cleaner Mohan and immediately he was taken to a nearby Primary Health Centre in Karukuzhi and from there shifted to the Government Hospital, Maduranthagam where he was pronounced dead. It is the case of the claimants that on the morning of 8.2.2005, he was on duty as a lorry driver, during which period he developed chest pain, as a result of which, he was taken to the hospital and the Doctor declared him as dead in the hospital. 5. The Appellant filed objection, stating that the Appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, since heart attack was not on account of the stress or strain during the working hours. The Deputy Labour Commissioner-II, for Workmen's Compensation, Chennai, considering the evidence let in by the parties came to the conclusion that the deceased while discharging his duties as a driver has developed chest pain which resulted in his death. Therefore, it was held that the Appellant is liable to pay the compensation. The order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner-II is called in question in this appeal. 6. Mr.K.S.Narasimhan, the learned counsel for the Appellant, reiterating the grounds urged before the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner-II, contended that there was no casual connection between the death and the employment and as such, the Appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. He would point out that PW.2 the cleaner was not aware about the physical condition of the deceased which is unbelievable and the deceased was also not driving continuously. 7. Admittedly, the deceased was driving the lorry with load of urea from Tuticorin to Arakonam and was supposed to travel a long distance. There is no evidence that there was any alternate driver in the vehicle to cover such a long distance. Naturally, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ there will be stress on his body and mind, which would have developed the chest pain. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the developing of chest pain by the deceased while discharging his duty as a driver is only on account of stress and strain during the course of his employment. The heart attack caused to the deceased could very well be attributed to the nature of job. In the circumstances, there is casual connection between the death and the employment of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner-II for Workmen's Compensation is justified in awarding a sum of Rs.3,76,300/- as total compensation to the claimants. 8. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar Srcm To: The Deputy Labour Commissioner-II for Workmen's Compensation, Chennai Copy to: The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras 1 cc To M/s.P.Mani., Advocate, SR.29312 CMA.No.2449/2006 VD(CO) SRA (25/05/2011) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/