IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N K SUDHINDRARAO MFA No.106/2010 (WC) C/W MFA CROB.No.91/2011 MFA No.106/2010 BETWEEN:
K Ravindra s/o late P Shankaranarayana Aged about 48 years Lakshmi Tractors & Cement Dealers, O T Road, Shimoga - 577201. ... Appellant (By Sri R V Jayaprakash, Advocate) AND:
1. Smt.Shakila Begum w/o late H Kaleem Aged about 34 years r/o Sriramanagar Extension Gopala, Shimoga-577 201.
2. H K Akram s/o late H Kaleem Aged about 20 years r/o Sriramanagar Extension Gopala, Shimoga – 577 201.
3. H K Adil s/o late H Kaleem Aged about 18 years r/o Sriramanagar Extension Gopala, Shimoga – 577 201.
4. H K Shabnam d/o late H Kaleem Aged about 16 years r/o Sriramanagar Extension Gopala, Shimoga – 577 201 Minor, represented by her Guardian-Mother Smt.Shekila Begum (Rept.No.1) 5. Reslie Jan Father’s name not known to appellant, Aged about 55 years Lakshmi Tractors, O T Road Shimoga – 577 201. .. Respondents (By Smt.Usha Sunil, Advocate for R1 to R3, Notice to R5 d/w v/c/o dtd:2.7.2010) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the order dated 30.10.2009 passed in WCA(F) 27:2007 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Shimoga, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,25,940/- with interest @ 12% p.a.
MFA CROB.No.91/2011 BETWEEN:
1. Smt.Shakila Begum w/o late K Kaleem Aged about 34 years.
2. H K Akram s/o late H Kaleem Aged about 20 years.
3. H K Adil, s/o Late Kaleem Aged about 18 years.
4. H K Shabnum, d/o late Kaleem Aged about 16 years Since minor Reptd. By mother and natural Guardian 1st appellant.
All are r/a Sriramanagar Extension Gopala, Shivamogga – 577201. .. Cross Objectors (By Smt.Usha Sunil, Advocate) AND:
1. K Ravindra s/o late Shankarnarayan Aged about 48 years Lakshmi Tractors & Cement Dealers O T Road Shimogga – 577201.
2. Resile Jan Aged about 55 years Manager Lakshmi Tractors & Cement Dealers O T Road, Shimogga-577201. .. Respondents (By Sri R V Jayaprakash, Advocate for R2, R1 – served) This MFA CROB is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, against the judgment dated 30.10.2009 passed in WCA(F) No.27/2007 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Shimoga, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
MFA and MFA CROB are coming on for hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:
J UD G M E N T The appeal and cross objection are directed against the judgment and order dated 30.10.2009 passed in WCA(F) No.27/2007 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Shimoga, wherein the claim petition came to be partly allowed by awarding compensation of Rs.2,25,940/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 31st day of death of workman till realization.
2. Challenging the quantum of compensation, the owner-employer preferred MFA. No.106/2010. MFA. Crob. No.91/2011 is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation.
3. The brief facts of the case are that one Kaleem was an employee under the 1st respondent died during and in the course of his employment. It was averred in the claim petition that two years prior to his death, he was working as a Supervisor in the cement godown belonging to the 1st respondent and for the last six months he was working as a Supervisor in the Lakshmi Tractors Showroom during the morning hours and in the night he was working as a Watchman.
4. On 11.4.2004 the said Kaleem had come to the house and after taking meals, he returned to the showroom at about 3.30 p.m. stating that he would not be able to come for a week on account of too much of work. When the claimants went to the office to enquire they were told that Kaleem had gone out of station. On 15.4.2004 at 9.00 p.m. they came to know that Kaleem was dead while on duty. During mahazar, an amount of Rs.47,000/- that was with the dead body was collected by one Budensab and it was handed over to the 2nd respondent, Resile Jan. It is stated that the said Kaleem was getting salary of Rs.1,500/- p.m.
5. The respondents denied the claim. The contention of the respondents was that Kaleem took a cheque for payment on 13.4.2004. But after collecting the money from the Bank, he went to Ranebennur and died while he was sleeping in a lodge. Thereafter a complaint was lodged by the respondents.
6. The relationship of employer and employee between the respondents and the deceased Kaleem was seriously disputed. Since both the appeal and cross objection arise out of the same order, they are taken up together for final disposal. It is not in dispute that deceased Kaleem died due to cardiac arrest, during his employment.
7. The commissioner after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the petition and awarded the compensation as mentioned above, which is challenge before this Court.
8. Sri R V Jayaprakash, learned counsel for the employer would submit that the postmortem report – Ex.P13 reveals that the cause of death of a deceased was due to cardio – respiratory failure as a result of myocardial infraction. Learned counsel would also submit that the owner-respondent herein is not liable to pay the compensation, as the death of the deceased was not during and in the course of his employment and hence, the claim petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is not maintainable.
9. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the employer has relied upon the decision reported in (2007) 11 SCC 668 in the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti –vs- Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another.
10. On the other hand, Smt.Usha Sunil, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-dependants of the deceased employee would submit that though the deceased died at Ranebennur, he had gone to encash the cheque for his employer and died during and in the course of his employment.
11. As such, the claimants being the dependants of the deceased employee are absolutely entitled for compensation. However, as the quantum of compensation is very much on the lower side, the claimants have preferred cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation.
12. It is settled law that to claim compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act, the claimants have to establish the relationship of employer-employee and that the deceased died during and in the course of his employment.
Though the employer-respondent seriously disputed the nature and cause of death, the medical record viz., postmortem report clearly indicate that the death of the deceased was due to cardiac arrest. Thus, it takes to the next question as to whether the claimants have established the relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and respondents. The evidence on record clearly reveals that Kaleem was working as Supervisor in the Tractor showroom and thereafter Watchman for sometime therein. This aspect has not been seriously disputed. Further, the deceased, Kaleem was sent to Ranebennur by his employer. The claimant No.1, who is none other than the wife of deceased Kaleem, alleged that her husband, after going to work on the fateful day, didn’t return for long time and however, had sent for dinner to the office itself. In fact, when it was enquired in the office, they were told her that Kaleem had been sent to Ranebennur for some urgent work.
13. Thereafter, it came to the notice of the claimants that he was dead and the dead body was found in the hospital. In the circumstances, an inference is required to be drawn in favour of the employee that deceased employee, namely, Kaleem had gone to Ranebennur to encash the cheque for Rs.50,000/- belonging to his employer, but he didn’t return and the dead body was traced in the hospital at Ranebennur and no other reasons would be attributable for cause of death of the deceased.
14. The contention of the learned counsel that the deceased Kaleem did not die due to accidental injuries sustained during his employment cannot be sustainable, inasmuch as, the records reveals that the deceased Kaleem had been deputed by his employer to Ranebennur to attend work, during which period, he died due to cardiac arrest. Under such circumstances, death is a death and nature or cause of death is an irrelevant factor. It cannot be ruled out that stress can be developed to the employee, due to restless work and when a person is unable to come out of stress and pressure, death may be caused during and in the course of his employment. Thus, of course, cardiac arrest is very often attributed to pressure and stress to a person either from within himself or for other reasons. The theory of notional extension of employment cannot be discarded.
15. In the instant case, it is stated that because of work, Kaleem had suffered stress on the previous day. The death was due to too much of work and hence, he could not come to home for dinner. There are no external reasons attributable other than stress. In her evidence, PW1 denied the suggestion against the relationship or cause of death. During cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that her husband was not working as a Watchman. She reiterates the petition contents. In the overall circumstances of the case, there are no complaints of ill-health. The deceased, Kaleem was working as a Supervisor and Watchman in the business establishment of the respondent. The evidence of Sri. K. Raveendra clearly indicate that deceased Kaleem had been sent to Ranebennur for encashment of cheque of Rs.50,000/-. At the time of mahazar, a sum of Rs.47,000/- belongs to his employer has been recovered.
16. In the overall circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was justified in awarding compensation. There are no good grounds made out to interfere with such findings recorded by the Commissioner. The appeal filed by the employer (MFA. 106/2010) is liable to be dismissed.
17. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record in proper perspective, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation has awarded just and reasonable compensation. No case for enhancement is made out by the claimants.
In the result, the appeal and the cross-objection are devoid of merit and the same stand dismissed.
Bkm.
Sd/- JUDGE