This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the order passed in W.C.No.332 of 2008 dated 18.02.2013, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirapalli.
2. It is a case of a fatal accident took place on 04.11.2007. At the time of occurrence, the deceased was working as a driver under the first respondent. When the deceased was driving the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-20-AZ-9166, after discharging his duties, he suffered from severe heart pain and hence, he stopped the vehicle and the accompanied person took him to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, where he reported to be dead. The deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of his death and he has earned a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirapalli, claiming a sum of Rs.6,000/- as compensation.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, they denied the death which was caused during the time of employment and they also denied the income and also denied the employer and employee relationship.
4. Before the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirappalli on the side of the claimants, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and five documents viz., Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked and one witness viz., R.W.1 was examined and the Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.R.1.
5.The Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, after discussing the evidence and documents on record, reached the conclusion that the accident was occurred at the time of employment and at the time of accident, the deceased was working for the first respondent and directed the appellant/second respondent to pay a sum of Rs.4,10,200/- as compensation to the claimants as per the following formula:
Against which, the appellant/third respondent has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
6. In this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, though the appellant has raised so many Substantial Questions of Law for consideration, they mainly raised the following Substantial Question of Law for consideration in this appeal:
?Whether the learned Commissioner has failed to hold that the deceased Murugesan death is a natural one due to pre-existing disease??
7. The only main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the deceased had died due to the previous disease and not due to the stress during the working time and hence, he contended that the appellant/second respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Hence, prayed for interference of this Court to the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Trichirappalli.
8. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Rashida Haroon Kupurade Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and others reported in 2010(1) TNMAC 131 (SC); and
(ii) S.Mahalakshmi Vs. The Management, Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation, Alangulam, Virudhunagar reported in 2010(2) TNMAC 377.
9. The learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has correctly found that the death of the deceased was occurred only in the course of his employment and awarded a just compensation and hence, the order passed by the the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Trichirappalli deserves no interference and hence, this appeal has to be dismissed.
10. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Param Pal Singh through father Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., and another reported in 2013(1) TNMAC 1 (SC), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:
?27.Applying the various principles laid down in the above decisions to the facts of this case, we can validly conclude that there was Causal Connection to the death of the deceased with that of his employment as a truck driver. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a 45 years old driver meets with his unexpected death, may be due to heart failure while driving the vehicle from Delhi to a distant place called Nimiaghat near Jharkhand which is about 1152 kms. away from Delhi, would have definitely undergone grave strain and stress due to such long distance driving. The deceased being a professional heavy vehicle driver when undertakes the job of such driving as his regular avocation it can be safely held that such constant driving of heavy vehicle, being Dependant solely upon his physical and mental resources & endurance, there was every reason to assume that the vocation of driving was a material contributory factor if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected death to occur which in all fairness should be held to be an untoward mishap in his life span. Such an 'untoward mishap' can therefore be reasonably described as an 'accident' as having been caused solely attributable to the nature of employment indulged in with his employer which was in the course of such employer's trade or business.?
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
12. The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Madurai, after discussing elaborately, has held as follows:
'vdNt ,t;tof;fpy; ,we;jth; Kjy; vjph;kDjhuUf;Fr; nrhe;jkhd thfdj;ij njhlh;e;J ,af;fp tUk;NghJ neQ;Rtyp Vw;gl;L ,we;jjhf Gfhh;jhuh; Gfhh; nfhLj;Js;sjd; mbg;gilapYk;> k.rh.M.1 Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if kw;Wk ;kDjhuh; rhl;rp kw;Wk; rhd;whtzq;fspd; mbg;gilapYk; ,we;jth; gzpapilapy; neQ;Rtyp Vw;gl;L ,we;jhh; vd;W jPH;khdpf;fpNwd;?.
13. A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner , it is clearly stated that only during the course of employment, the deceased had died and had arrived just and proper compensation. The judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent is also squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Trichirappalli and the same does not require interference at the hands of this Court. The Substantial Questions of Law is answered accordingly.
14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the order passed in W.C.No.332 of 2008 dated 18.02.2013, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirapalli hereby confirmed. The claimants/ respondents 1 to 5 are entitled to withdraw the entire amount deposited before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai to the credit of W.C.No.332 of 2008. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To
1.The Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirapalli.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.