Case: C. MANJAMMA &amp; ANR Vs. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD

the said insurance policy and on examining thoroughly and considering the factors addressed during arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties with regard to payment of compensation due to the first and second petitioner under law towards the death of the deceased, it is decided that, the second respondent is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 4,15,960-00 to the first and second petitioners under statute with regard to the death of the deceased. 7. In the insurers appeal against the judgment and award aforesaid, the High Court took note of the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings of the Commissioner and then, with reference to the decision of this Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti vs Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Anr.: (2007) 11 SCC 668, particularly paragraph 38 to 42 thereof, found the judgment and award made by the Commissioner unsustainable for the following reasons: - 21. As noticed hereinabove, there is no oral evidence with regard to admission of the workman into the hospital. Further, the cause of death is not forthcoming in the records. Therefore, in my considered view, the conclusion arrived at by the W.C. Commissioner that there exists a nexus between the cause of death and the occupation of workman is not supported by any evidence and therefore, the W.C. Commissioner does not get jurisdiction to award compensation. 8. Assailing the judgment and order so passed by the High Court, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that in this case, the fundamental facts stand duly established by evidence produced on record that the deceased was 30 years of age; he was engaged as a driver on the auto-rickshaw; and he expired while on duty because of cardiac arrest, which he suffered due to the strain and stress of his job. Learned counsel would submit that on the basis of relevant material, the Commissioner had recorded cogent findings of fact and there had not been any perversity in such findings so as to call for interference by the High Court. Learned counsel would further submit that the decision in the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti(supra) is clearly distinguishable because the deceased therein was engaged on the job of a cleaner on the vehicle and this Court consciously took note of the fact that nature of his duty, being of helper, was not such that it would cause stress or strain. Learned counsel has further drawn our attention to the observations made in paragraph 38 of the said decision and has submitted that in the present case, the basic and foundational facts have been established by the claimants that it had been a case of death during the course of employment and having been caused due to the reasons attributable to the employment. Learned counsel has also submitted that there was no such substantial question of law involved in the matter so as to call for interference by the High Court. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-insurer has duly supported the judgment and order passed by the High Court and has emphasised on the contentions that the appellants have failed to establish that the death occurred due to employment or due to reasons attributable to the employment. Learned counsel would rely upon the decision in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti (supra). According to the learned counsel, since the claimants failed to prove the basic jurisdictional facts, the High Court has rightly interfered in the matter. 10. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the material placed on record with reference to the law applicable, we are clearly of the view that the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained as there was no substantial question of law involved in the matter for which, the High Court could have interfered with the judgment and award made by the Commissioner. 11. As noticed above, the Commissioner had returned the basic findings of fact with reference to the material placed on record. It is noticed that the claimants i.e., the wife and mother of the deceased, had indeed placed on record the FIR, inquest mahazar, spot mahazar, charge-sheet and post mortem report along with FSL report. The Commissioner, with reference to the said evidence as also after analysing the rebuttal evidence adduced by the respondent-insurer, recorded the findings which cannot be said to be perverse or suffering from any such manifest illegality so as to give rise to a substantial question of law for consideration of the High Court. 12. Even in paragraph 42 of the decision in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti(supra), this Court has made it clear that a question of law would arise when the same is not dependent on examination of evidence and which may not require any fresh investigation of fact. A question of law would arise, of course, when the finding is perverse or when no legal evidence is adduced to establish the jurisdictional facts. The observations made by the High Court in the present case in paragraph 21 appear to be rather of assumptive nature than of specific conclusion on perversity. In other words, the view as taken by the Commissioner was the one based on the material placed on record, which basically established that the deceased was indeed employed as a driver on the vehicle; he was 30 years of age; and he died while on duty and his demise due to cardiac arrest was attributable to his job of driver. There had not been shown any other background aspect or any other clinching feature because of which death of the workman, a 30-year-old person, could be attributed to any other cause. That being the position, the view taken by the Commissioner had been a possible view of the matter in the given set of facts and circumstances; and there was no reason for the High Court to interfere with the same, particularly when the case did not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act, 1933.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]10. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the material placed on record with reference to the law applicable, we are clearly of the view that the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained as there was no substantial question of law involved in the matter for which, the High Court could have interfered with the judgment and award made by the Commissioner.11. As noticed above, the Commissioner had returned the basic findings of fact with reference to the material placed on record. It is noticed that the claimants i.e., the wife and mother of the deceased, had indeed placed on record the FIR, inquest mahazar, spot mahazar, charge-sheet and post mortem report along with FSL report. The Commissioner, with reference to the said evidence as also after analysing the rebuttal evidence adduced by the respondent-insurer, recorded the findings which cannot be said to be perverse or suffering from any such manifest illegality so as to give rise to a substantial question of law for consideration of the High Court.12. Even in paragraph 42 of the decision in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti(supra), this Court has made it clear that a question of law would arise when the same is not dependent on examination of evidence and which may not require any fresh investigation of fact. A question of law would arise, of course, when the finding is perverse or when no legal evidence is adduced to establish the jurisdictional facts. The observations made by the High Court in the present case in paragraph 21 appear to be rather of assumptive nature than of specific conclusion on perversity. In other words, the view as taken by the Commissioner was the one based on the material placed on record, which basically established that the deceased was indeed employed as a driver on the vehicle; he was 30 years of age; and he died while on duty and his demise due to cardiac arrest was attributable to his job of driver. There had not been shown any other background aspect or any other clinching feature because of which death of the workman, a 30-year-old person, could be attributed to any other cause. That being the position, the view taken by the Commissioner had been a possible view of the matter in the given set of facts and circumstances; and there was no reason for the High Court to interfere with the same, particularly when the case did not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act, 1933.