Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923- Section 22 - The death of the deceased was due to heart-attack. Ex.A5 is the death certificate, which clearly goes to show that the death of the deceased occurred on 26.12.1998 in Nowada hospital, Bihar State. While he was in the course of employment, he suffered with severe heart-attack and died. Basing on the decision of this Court, the learned Commissioner awarded the compensation.- Coming to the interest passed is concerned, the Commissioner granted 9% interest from the date of accident which is not permissible under law. Therefore, the applicants are entitled for interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application to the date of award and thereafter, at 12% per annum, till the date of realisaiton.


HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.238 OF 2013

JUDGMENT:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against the order, dated 12.09.2002, passed in W.C.No.43 of 1999 on the file of the Commissioner for the Workmen’s Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Guntur.

2.      The appellant herein is the opposite party No.2, respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are the applicants and sixth respondent herein is the opposite party No.1 in W.C.No.43 of 1999. 

3.      For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the learned Commissioner.

4.      The applicants are the wife and children of Shaik Khajavali (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’). W.C.No.43 of 1999 was filed under Section 22 of the Act by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased during the course of his employment. On 23.12.1998, the cleaner of the vehicle namely the deceased suddenly developed chest pain and he was taken to the hospital and thereafter, he died due to massive heart-attack.  Hence, the claim.

5.      Opposite Party No.2 filed a counter stating that there is no relationship of employer and employee and that the deceased did not suffer with chest pain in the course of employment and hence he prays to dismiss the same.

6.      Basing on the above pleadings, learned Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:
1.    Whether the deceased was employed by O.P.1 on the vehicle No.AP 16U 7074?
2.    Whether the deceased met with an accident while on duty on the said vehicle and consequently died?
3.    What are the age and wages of the deceased at the time of his death?
4.    Whether the said vehicle was insured with O.P.2 and valid at the time of accident?
5.    Whether the applicants are entitled for any compensation and what is the liability oif paying compensation by O.Ps.?

7.      On behalf of the applicants, AWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked.  On behalf of the opposite parties, no evidence was let in. 

8.      After considering both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Commissioner granted compensation of Rs.1,21,137/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which, opposite parties shall pay interest at 9% per annum from the date of accident till date of realisation.  Hence, this appeal.
9.      The death of the deceased was due to heart-attack.  Ex.A5 is the death certificate, which clearly goes to show that the death of the deceased occurred on 26.12.1998 in Nowada hospital, Bihar State. While he was in the course of employment, he suffered with severe heart-attack and died.  Basing on the decision of this Court, the learned Commissioner awarded the compensation.

10.    The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the applicants have not proved that the deceased suffered heart-attack due to the stress and strain involved in his employment, that the deceased never suffered heart pain at any point of time and that there is no evidence to show that deceased was working as a cleaner in the insured lorry. 

11.    The evidence of AWs.1 and 2 would clearly go to show that the deceased was working as cleaner in the lorry bearing No.AP 16U 7074.  On the date of accident, he was travelling in the lorry as a cleaner from Guntur to Bihar State with a chilly load.  So also, the deceased suffered severe heart-attack and he was rushed to the hospital, where the doctors declared him as brought-dead.  
The distance is so long.  The opposite party No.1 ought not to have allowed him with much stress and strain to undertake a long journey.  Considering the distance, there must be severe stress on the cleaner, and because of severe stress only, he must have suffered severe heart-attack. Therefore the learned Commissioner rightly granted the compensation and it needs no interference.

12.    Coming to the interest passed is concerned, the Commissioner granted 9% interest from the date of accident which is not permissible under law.  Therefore, the applicants are entitled for interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application to the date of award and thereafter, at 12% per annum, till the date of realisaiton. 

13.    With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.  No costs.  Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand closed. 

______________________

JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

March 08, 2013.
sr/pn

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU





                                                               













                                             


















CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.238 OF 2013

March 08, 2013







sr/pn

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.