H OURT GF EHHTTISGARH AT IMSFUR § . MISC. APPEAL (C) No. 161' OF 20106 Smt Jankl Ba Wd/o Jageshwar laimant APPELLANT Yadav R/o Vlllage Mudpara PO & PS .Arjunl '!I'ah ‘& Dlstt Dhamtarl (CG). i v . 1 1. Executive Engineer Water Management Deptt Near All lndla ‘ Radio CIVII LlnesmRalpur(CG) . Sub DMSIonal Officer Mahanadt Water Management Deptt Sub Divnslon No 1 Rudn . ahils & '* Distt Dhamtarl(CG) State of MP (Now state of CG} Through The Collector Dhamtan CG I Memo of aggeal under section 30 of Workman s Comgensatron Act. (SB Hon'ble Mr N K Aqarwat J ) sent Shn SC Verma Advocate for appenant Shh GD Waswani Govt Advocate for State Versus ESPONDENTS _ on-applicants ' ORAL ORDER: (Passed on 13‘“ or March, 2010) ith the consent of the parties, the matter'is heard finally. The instant appeal has been preferred under section 3O of the Workmen’a Compensation“ Act, 1923, (for Short ‘the Act’) against the order dated. 21102005, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's- Compensation, Labour Court ; Raipur, in case ‘No. B-‘133IAN.C.\Act/99 Fatal, whereby and whereunder the Commissioner has dismissed the application of the appellant. '\ a; The facts briefly stated are asunde : i a r . Jageshwar,)(adav (since deceased), was workingas - ’Khalasi,..but atthe time of incident, he'was workina ge. ‘4‘ { HIG C A é i C . T ; R N x Pre W , " \ r a Chqwkidar under the employmjent of the respondent 7 ‘ No. 2. In the. intervenirig night. of 04.04.1993 to { ;, V 05.04.1998 he died due to heaqt attack while he was working as a Chowkidar . ii. The appellant preferred an I application clalmln compensation agalnst the respondents on the groun . that he dred due to heat attack during the course o employment . The respondents filed their wntten statement befor the Commissioner and denied the fact that Jageshwar Yadav died In any accident arose out of and during th _‘ course of employment lt was speclfcally pleaded that 'v .the deceased was working In the office of Sub DIVISIonal I Officer, Mahanadi; Water Management Deptt. Sub DivisionNo. 1, Dhamtari. asra Khalasion ‘_ dailywages basis.‘Hemdid‘notjédled in any. aocident ,. arose out of and duringthe course of-employment . 3. The Commissroner for Workmen on close scrutiny of the evrdence led by the parties the material available on the record ‘ and submissions of the parties. held: that clalmant‘has failed to. prove that the death of Jageshwar Yadav occurred in an accident arose out of during the course of employment and dismissed the application. Hence this appeal 4. Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the «claimant, , vehemently argued~that-the death of late J'ageshwar Yadav had: a casual connection With the nature of the empioyment and: therefore the Commlssloner for Workmen Compensation has g d f e e wrongly dismisse‘d‘the application flied by the appenant and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 0n the other hand, 'Shrir GD Waswiani, Govt. ‘Advdcate, appearing for-the respondents, supportedi the order passed by, the Commissioner andsubmitted that the order is based on , appreciation’of evidence and the same deserves to be upheld. a “i have heard the counset appearing: for the parties, perused the pteadings and evidence available on rec‘ord and also the order v impugned. The appellant did notproduce any document in support of’his case nor any doctor has been examined: to prove the facts that the said heat attack was due to stress and strain of the work. 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 Supreme Court in the matter of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti V.’ Prabhakar Marutl 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 further held tn para 38 that “unless evrdence Is brought on record to elaborate that the death by wayof cardiac arrest hasoccurred because of stress or strain, the Commissioner would nct have jurisdiction to grant damages.....?'_ l > / e In view of the’ legal proposition settled b}; SupremeCaurt in the above referred case, and in View of the cts and. circumstance of the-case, l have no hesitation to hold that’the appellant, has, failed tor demonstrate that there is any casual connection Salhu between the lnjury and-the accident and! the work done in the course of employment. Therefore,‘ no substantial questionrof" ‘ law arises in this case for determination. = ' ‘ The appeal,’bein’g devoid of substance; is llableto be and is hereby‘dismissed. No order asto costs. 't - ‘ ‘ Sd/- w N.K.Agarwa‘ Judge 10. i