BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19/04/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN C.M.A.No.716 of 1997 1.Lakshmi 2.Minor N.Rukmani 3.Minor N.Boopathy ... Appellants Vs 1.Govindarajan 2.New India Assurance Co., Ltd., 161-A, East Veli Street, Madurai-1. ... Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, (Act VIII of 1923), against the judgment and decree made in W.C.No.93 of 1995, dated 26.08.1996, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Madurai. !For Appellants .... Mr.Kumaravel ^For Respondents .... Mr.Karthik for R1 for M/s.S.Silambanan Mr.C.Ramesh Babu for R2 :JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred against the order passed in W.C.No.93 of
1995, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under Workmen’s
Compensation Act, Madurai.
The facts in brief are as follows:
2. The first claimant is the wife of Natarajan, who was an employee under
the first respondent as a lorry driver in the lorry bearing Registration No.TAA-
8677 which was insured with the second respondent. According to the claimants,
the first claimant’s husband, Natarajan drove the lorry from Madurai to Madras
on 27.12.1990, then, he immediately returned on the night on 28.12.1990 and
while he was nearing Madurai, he had developed chest pain on the early morning
of 29.12.1990, and this was also informed to the first respondent and had
consulted the Doctor Chinnadurai, at Madura Surgical Clinic, Madurai on
30.12.1990 and as per his advice, he went to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai
and died on 31.12.1990 without responding to the treatment. According to the
claimants, only due to the heavy work, Natarajan had suffered heart attack and
died and that at the time of the occurrence, Natarajan was drawing Rs.860/-
towards his monthly salary, besides Rs.450/- towards daily batta. Hence, the
claimants filed the claim petition claiming Rs.70,608.80 towards compensation.
3. The first respondent in his counter has contended that the said
Natarajan took the lorry from Madurai on 26.12.1990 and he came back from Madras
on 29.12.1990 and he left the lorry in the shed and he died two days later. The
first respondent would contend that the death of the lorry driver, Natarajan had
not occurred during the course of the employment.
4. The second respondent has also contended that since, the death of the
said Natarajan has not occurred during the course of the employment under the
first respondent, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to
the claimants.
5. Before the Deputy Commissioner, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and
Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side of the
respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.4 were exhibited.
6. After going through the evidence, the Deputy Commissioner has come to a
conclusion that the death of Natarajan has not occurred during the course of the
employment and accordingly, dismissed the claim petition.
7. Aggrieved by the orders of the Deputy Commissioner under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, the claimants have preferred this appeal.
8. Now, the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is whether
the death of the said Natarajan, the lorry driver under the first respondent,
had occurred during the course of the employment or not?
The Point:
9. The first respondent, namely the owner of the lorry bearing
Registration No.TAA-8677, was examined as R.W.1 and has admitted the fact that
the deceased Natarajan was his driver in the lorry bearing Registration No.TAA-
8677 and that he took the lorry from Madurai to Madras on 27.12.1990 and
returned from Madras on 28.12.1990 night itself and he reached Madurai on
29.12.1990 at about 04.00 p.m. So, the fact that the deceased Natarajan was
under the employment of the first respondent, has been admitted by the first
respondent himself. According to the claimants, the said Natarajan had
developed chest pain at 04.00 a.m., on 29.12.1990, when the lorry was nearing
Melur and that on 30.12.1990, he consulted the Doctor, Chinnadurai who was
examined as P.W.4, had referred him to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and
that the said Natarajan died on 31.12.1990 without responding to the treatment.
P.W.4, Doctor, Chinnadurai has also deposed to the effect that he examined the
said Natarajan and on 30.12.1990 in his private nursing home and that he had
diagnosed the said Natarajan had developed the symptoms of heart attack and he
referred him to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai for further treatment.
P.W.4, the Doctor, has also admitted that Ex.P.6, is the letter given to
Natarajan advising him to take further treatment at Government Rajaji Hospital,
Madurai. P.W.3, is the cleaner of the lorry bearing Registration No.TAA-8677,
who has also deposed to the effect that Natarajan had driven the lorry from
Madurai to Madras on 27.12.1990 and after the work was over at Madras, he also
returned along with the driver of the lorry on 28.12.1990 to Madurai and that
while the lorry was nearing Melur at about, 02.00 a.m., on 29.12.1990, the
driver, Natarajan had developed chest pain. The first claimant who is the wife
of the deceased Natarajan in her deposition as P.W.1, has also deposed to the
effect that her husband Natarajan returned to house on 29.12.1990, evening with
chest pain. The Deputy Commissioner has rejected the claim of the claimants
only on the ground that the deceased Natarajan died only on31.12.1990 and not
during the course of the employment.
10. The learned Counsel for the appellant relying on the decision in The
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation, Madras-2, Vs. Lalitha
and others reported in 1997 T.L.N.J page 122 and contended that in the said
case, the driver of the bus Route No.515 had driven the bus from Trichy to
Coimbatore on 23.11.1985 and after reaching Coimbatore, he has to take back the
bus from Coimbatore to Trichy on the next day i.e, on 24.11.1985 and that when
he was about to take the bus at Coimbatore Bus Stand, he suffered a massive
heart attack and died and in that case also, it was contended that the driver of
the bus had not died during the course of his employment. But rejecting the
said defence, this Court has held as follows:
“In the decision reported in Zubeda Bond and others Vs. Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation and others (1991 – I LLJ 66), it has been held that
absence of ample evidence, should not relieve the court of its duty to arrive at
a conclusion on the vital issues on the basis of available material, that the
Evidence Act as such does not apply to the proceedings under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act and that the Workmen’s Compensation Act is a beneficial
legislation intended to give some security to workmen in certain types of
employment and that the liability of the employer under the Act is conceptually
quite different from the liability under tort and therefore the Act should be
construed in a broad and liberal manner, lest its evident object is defeated.
After making such observations, the Bench has held that the death of a bus
driver of a State Transport Corporation who sustained heart attack and collapsed
while changing the destination name board is death arising out of and in the
course of employment.
In the present case, the deceased had driven the bus belonging to the
respondent from Tiruchi to Coimbatore on the previous day. On the ill-fated
days, viz., 24th November, 1985, when he was about to take the bus from
Coimbatore bus stand, he had suffered heart attack. As the driver of the bus,
he should have brought the vehicle to the bus stand from the bus depot which is
elsewhere in the Town. In these circumstances, when we consider the above
rulings, and apply the same to the facts of the present case, it would show that
the death of Rajagopal, husband of the first applicant, is arising out of and in
the course of employment and the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation has
therefore rightly allowed the application.”
11. The above dictum will also apply to the present facts of the case.
The evidence in this case is that for more than 24 hours continuously the
deceased driver Natarajan had driven the lorry bearing Registration No.TAA-8677
and it is in evidence that even while returning to Madurai in the early morning
of 29.12.1990, he had developed the chest pain and from next day, he had
referred to a Doctor who had given Ex.P.6, letter advising him for further
treatment at the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, but without responding to
the treatment, he died on 31.12.1990. So, it cannot be said that the said
Natarajan had died not during the course of his employment. As observed in the
earlier dictum by the learned Judge, the Workmen’s Compensation Act, has been
enacted only to benefit the employees and while applying the provisionof the
Act, it must be applied in a broad and liberal manner.
12. So, I am of the view that this is a fit case to be remanded to the
Deputy Commissioner for assessing the damages for the death of lorry driver
Natarajan.
13. Hence, I hold on the point that the order passed in W.C.No.93 of 1995
by the Deputy Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, Madurai, dated
26.08.1996, is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the Memorandum
of appeal in C.M.A.No.716 of 1997.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed in W.C.No.93
of 1995 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner under
Workmen’s Compensation Act, Madurai, for fresh disposal. Since, the matter is
of the year 1995, the Deputy Commissioner is directed to dispose of the case
W.C.No.93 of 1995 within two months from the date of receipt of the records. No
costs.
rsb
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal –
Sub Court,
Nagercoil.