Case: Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali

2. Prakash Chandrakant Shreshti (hereinafter called `the deceased) was working as a Cleaner in Vehicle No. MH 09A 9727. The said vehicle belonged to Respondent No. 1. He was travelling in the said vehicle in the night of 27.9.2002. He suddenly developed chest pain. He was admitted to Government hospital, Mangaon where the doctor declared him dead. Indisputably, the incident had occurred while deceased was performing his duties.3. Appellant herein, the mother of deceased filed a Claim Petition under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the Act) before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation which was registered as WCA/SR/19/2003. The vehicle being insured with the United India Insurance Company, it was also impleaded as a party.4. The fact that at the time of his death, the deceased was discharging his duties is not disputed. The autopsy was conducted wherein the cause of death was opined as Cardiac arrest due to Rupture Aortic Aneurysm. No injury on his body was found. The only evidence which was brought on record was by way of deposition of Appellant. It was allegedson died while working in the vehicle of R-1 and due to the strain ofA copy of the Claim Petition has not been placed before us. We, therefore, are not sure as to whether there was any requisite pleading. The first Respondent, however, in his objection statedis further true that the said vehicle is used for carrying the milk and on 27.9.2002 at about 9.15 hours, the driver of the said vehicle Parasharam Chandrakant and the deceasedcleaner Prakash Chandrakant came to the Tavarewadi Chilling Centre for bringing the milk from Kolhapur, at that time, the deceased-Cleaner while getting down from the said vehicle got pain in the chest and sat on the ground and immediately the driver of the said vehicle taken him to dispensary to Government Hospital, Mangaon. The Doctor of the said Hospital stated that deceased-Cleaner died due to Cardiac arrest. It is true that the said deceased died in the course of his employment under this Respondent No. 1.The Insurer raised a plea of collusion between the employer and Appellant in its written statement. It, however, need not be adverted to.7. The Commissioner for Workmens Compensation raised several issues. The issue with which we are concerned is Issue No. 2, which is as underWhether the accident occurred during the course of employment and out ofThe Workmens Compensation Commissioner did not analyze the evidence on record. It did not arrive at a finding that the deceased met with an accident. It proceeded on the basis that deceased being a workman, it was obligatory on the part of the first Respondent to maintain registers under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act.9. The Commissioner, however, dealt with the legal issue as regards meaning of `accidents and injury, observingThe more usual case of an accident is an event happening externally to a man. The less obvious cases of accident are strain causing rupture, bursting of aneurism, failure of muscular action of the heart, exposure to draught causing chill, exertion in a stokehold causing apoplexy, shock causing neurasthenia etc. Lord Atkin called them as "Internal Accident". In such cases, it is hardly possible to distinguish in time between the `accident and `injury. The rupture is an accident, at the same time injury leading to death or incapacity at once or after a lapse of time. Thus in cases of internal accidents, "Accidents" and "Injury" coincide.16. What the Act, therefore, really intends to convey is what might be expressed as an `accidental injury. But the common factor in all cases of accident, whether `internal or `external is some concrete happening at a definite point of time and incapacity resulting from happening.17. An accident happening to a person in or about any premises at which, he is for the time being employed for the purpose of his employers trade or business shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of employment.Legal propositions are not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether the deceased died of an accidental injury in the course of and out of employment.11. An appeal was preferred thereagainst before the High Court by Respondent No. 3 under Section 30 of the Act. The said Appeal has been allowed by reason of the impugned judgment. The High Court opined that the findings of the Workmens Compensation were perverse and inconsistent with the material on record as also bereft of any reason.It wasis no material evidence to show that the deceased workman was suffering from a heart ailment. There is also no evidence to demonstrate that the workman was put through a sudden stressful condition in the course of his duties, which brought on a cardiac arrest. In the face of these circumstances, the reasoning of the Commissioner that the workman died as a result of an accident during and in the course of his employment, is difficult to be sustained."

Court's reasoning:
34. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant seeks to distinguish this decision stating that therein the job of the workman was merely to switch on and switch off and thus there has been no scope of stress and strain in his duties and that the workman had been suffering from a heart disease. But in this case also job of a cleaner was not strenuous and in any event far less that of driver of the vehicle.35. 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.36. The nature of duty of the deceased was that of a helper. Per se that the duties would not be such which could cause stress or strain. If an additional duty were required to be performed by him, the same was required to be clearly stated.37. 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 grant damages. In other words, the claimant was bound to prove jurisdictional fact before the Commissioner. Unless such jurisdictional facts are found, the Commissioner will have no jurisdiction to pass an order. It is nowthat for arriving at a finding of a jurisdictional fact, reference to any precedent would not be helpful as a little deviation from the fact of a decided case or an additional fact may make a lot of difference by arriving at a correct conclusion. For the said purpose, the statutory authority is required to pose unto himself the right question.38. Section 30 of the said Act postulates an appeal directly to High Court if a substantial question of law is involved in theA jurisdictional question will involve a substantial question of law. A finding of fact arrived at without there being any evidence would also give rise to a substantial question of law. From the order passed by the Commissioner, it appears, he has not arrived at a finding that the job involved any stress or strain. It was merely stated that he was working as a Khalasi in a truck which was going to Tavarewadi Village from Kolhapur to get the milk. The autopsy was conducted at Chandgad District Hospital. The driver Prashant Chandrakant Shreshti admittedly brought him to hospital. He was his brother. The post mortem examination commenced from 6.30 a.m. on 28.9.2002 and ended at 7.30 a.m. on the same day. From the post mortem report, it appears that in the accompanying report, it is stated that the death was due to sudden heart attack. When exactly the death took place is not known. It will bear repetition to state that under what circumstances the death took place is also not known. There was also no pleading in this behalf. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that the death took place during the course of the employment but then no evidence has been brought on record to show that it had a causal connection between accident and serious injury so as to fulfill the requirements of the terms "out of employment". Indisputably, there has to be an proximate nexus between cause of death and employment. A stray statement made by Appellant that the deceased had died while working in the vehicle and stress or strain of the work did not appear to have any foundation. Admittedly she was not present at the spot. She had also no personal knowledge. All these facts she had admitted in cross-examination.40. This vital aspect of the matter was required to be considered by the High Court so as to arrive at a finding as to how the said accident has arose or not.41. A question of law would arise when the same is not dependent upon examination of evidence, which may not require any fresh investigation of fact. A question of law would, however, arise when the finding is perverse in the sense that no legal evidence was brought on record or jurisdictional facts were not brought on record.42. We are not oblivious of the proposition of law as was stated by Frankfurter, J. in J.J.O Leary, Dy. Commnr., Fourteenth Compensation Distt. v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon Inc. [95 L. Ed 483 : 340 US 504 (1950)] that the court will not disturb a finding of an Administrative Tribunal when two views are possible and only because the appellate court can take a contrary view. But in the instant case, the Commissioner did not go into the jurisdictional facts not arrived at any finding based on any legal evidence in regard to the causal connection between the employment and the death.43. We, therefore, are of the opinion that ultimate conclusion of the High Court may be correct. We although would not, thus, interfere with the impugned judgment, but would direct that in event any amount has been paid to Appellant the same need not be refunded.