Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., challenged the judgment of the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, Bhandara, in FWCA No. 02 of 2004 dated 19/07/2006, directing the appellant and others jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.2,43,300/- with interest at 12% per annum to the respondents No.1 and 2, the widow and son of the deceased workman Yogesh Gadhave. The deceased was employed as a Tipper driver with non-applicant No.3 on a monthly salary of Rs.2500/-. On 15/09/2003 at about 3:00 a.m., he expired in the premises of Sunflag factory. According to the applicants, the deceased was on duty and due to stress and strain of work, he suffered mental, physical and bodily strain, and after vomiting blood from his mouth, he died. The applicants claimed that the death was due to personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment, and they were entitled to compensation. The non-applicants (employer and insurance company) resisted the application, denying that the death occurred due to bodily injury during the course of employment, pointing out that the postmortem report did not show any injury and no definite opinion was given by the doctor. The Commissioner, however, found that the death was due to stress and strain of work and awarded compensation. The High Court, in appeal under Section 30 of the Act, upheld the Commissioner's finding, holding that there was a causal connection between the employment and the death, and the employer failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that the death was not due to the employment. The court noted that the postmortem report did not rule out the possibility of death due to stress and strain, and the evidence of the widow and other witnesses supported the claim. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Workmen Compensation - Causal Connection - Personal Injury - Section 3 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 - Death due to stress and strain of work, without external injury, is a personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment if there is a causal connection between the employment and the death. The court held that the Commissioner correctly found that the death was due to stress and strain of work, and the employer failed to rebut the presumption of causal connection. (Paras 1-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death of the workman due to stress and strain of work, without any external injury, amounts to personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Commissioner's order awarding compensation of Rs.2,43,300/- with interest @ 12% per annum to the respondents.
Law Points
- Causal connection between employment and death
- stress and strain as personal injury
- burden of proof on employer to disprove causal connection
- Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act
- 1923
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (06) 79
First Appeal No. 1070 of 2008
Mr. T.A. Mirza h/f Mr. A. M. Qazi, for the Appellant; Mr. I. N. Choudhari, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Smt. Bhimabai Gadhave, Ganesh s/o Yogesh Gadhave, Narendra Kumar s/o Ramkulansingh Bhuwal, Shri. N. C. Nahar, General Manager, M/s Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment of the Commissioner directing payment of compensation.
Remedy Sought
The appellant (insurance company) sought to set aside the Commissioner's order awarding compensation to the respondents (widow and son of deceased workman).
Filing Reason
The appellant challenged the Commissioner's finding that the death of the workman was due to stress and strain of work and thus arose out of and in the course of employment.
Previous Decisions
The Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act, Bhandara, in FWCA No. 02 of 2004 on 19/07/2006 directed the appellant and others jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.2,43,300/- with interest @ 12% per annum.
Issues
Whether the death of the workman due to stress and strain of work, without external injury, amounts to personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the postmortem report did not show any injury and no definite opinion was given by the doctor, so the death was not due to employment.
Respondents argued that the death was due to stress and strain of work, which is a personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment, and there is a causal connection.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 3 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, death due to stress and strain of work, even without external injury, can be considered a personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment if there is a causal connection between the employment and the death. The burden of proof to disprove such causal connection lies on the employer.
Judgment Excerpts
This is an Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 by the appellant-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. questioning the legality of the judgment rendered in FWCA No. 02 of 2004 on 19/07/2006 by Commissioner, under the Act, Bhandara directing the appellant and others jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,43,300/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date till due payment.
According to applicant-wife, deceased workman was on duty on 15/09/2003 and at about 3-00 a.m. he expired in the premises of Sunflag factory.
On the day of incident due to stress and strain of work he suffered mental, physical and bodily strain and after vomiting blood from his mouth he died.
Procedural History
The respondents (applicants) filed FWCA No. 02 of 2004 before the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act, Bhandara, claiming compensation for the death of Yogesh Gadhave. The Commissioner passed judgment on 19/07/2006 awarding compensation. The appellant (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.) filed the present appeal under Section 30 of the Act before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Workmen Compensation Act, 1923: Section 30, Section 3
