1 FA 34/2011 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2011 Smt. Ishwari Narayan Challayya .. Appellant V/s Kiran Raghuvir Dulgach & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. I.A. Saiyed for the appellant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 15TH FEBRUARY 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 16th September 2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Judge, 8th Labour Court, Mumbai, dismissing the application for compensation filed by the appellant. 3. The appellant is the widow of Narayan Challayya who was employed as a driver under respondent no.1. He died on 27th October 2008. A post mortem report was conducted which disclosed congestion of heart and lungs and the cause of death 2 FA 34/2011 given in the post mortem report is “Coronary Artery Heart Disease (Natural)”. Out of compassion, the respondents paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the appellant being the widow of the deceased. She however subsequently filed an application for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act claiming that her husband died on account of employment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was required to work as a driver in the polluted environment of the city of Mumbai and therefore judicial notice ought to have been taken of strenuous conditions of driving in Mumbai, polluted environmental condition and on that basis the Commissioner ought to have held that the death was caused on account of employment. In this connection, he referred to and relied upon a decision of this Court in Laxmibai Atmaram v. Chairman and Trustees, Bombay Port Trust, , 1954 (1) LLJ 614. In paragraph 4 of the decision, it has been held that in order to claim compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it must be clearly established that the employment was a contributory cause or that the employment had accelerated the death. If it is established that the death was caused not only due to the disease but the disease coupled with the employment, the employer would be liable. In the present case, no such 3 FA 34/2011 evidence is available. In the post mortem report, the cause of death is stated as “Coronary Artery Heart Disease (Natural)”. There is no material on record to show that the Coronary Artery Heart Disease was in any way enhanced on account of the employment. 5. Proviso to section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act provides that no appeal shall lie against an order of the Commissioner unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. In my view, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. Consequently the appeal is dismissed summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)