IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA No. 1348 of 2002()
1. LEEZAMMA XAVIER @ SOPHY,
... Petitioner
2. MEEVAL XAVIER, D/O.LATE SRI.XAVIER K.C.,
3. MAGI XAVIER,D/O. LATE SRI.XAVIER K.C.,
4. MELLO XVIER, S/O.LATE SRI.XAVIER K.C.,
Vs
1. JOLLYMMA JOSEPH, MULAKUPADAM,
... Respondent
2. MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :13/02/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ.
--------------------------------------
M.F.A.No.1348 OF 2002
-------------------------------------
Dated 13th February, 2008
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
Appellants are the legal representatives of a deceased driver
of a passenger bus. The bus was insured by the second respondent
insurance company. While he was driving the bus, he had a heart attack
and he fell down from the driving seat. He was taken to the hospital and
was declared dead. It is the case of the claimants that the accident
occurred due to the strain of the work and, therefore, dependents are
entitled to compensation as provided in the Workmen’s Compensation
Act. It is not disputed that the deceased was a workman under the
first opposite party and the bus was insured by the second respondent
insurance company. There was also no dispute that the heart attack
occurred during the course of employment. Heart attack, being an
untoward incident, it is settled law that it can be treated as an accident.
However, to claim compensation, one has to prove that the accident
arose out of employment. It is contended that while the deceased was
driving the passenger bus, he suffered heart attack which shows that it
arose as a result of the strain of the work. According to the claimants,
when the accident arose during the course of employment, there is
presumption in favour of the claimant that accident was arising
MFA.1348/2002 2
out of employment unless proved otherwise. But, we are of the
opinion that there should be some evidence to show that the accident
has got at least a casual connection with the employment he was
doing. In view of the circumstances of the case, we remand the
matter. It is for the appellants to adduce further evidence to show
whether there was any casual connection with the employment and
whether any strain was caused during the course of employment.
They are free to adduce any evidence including medical evidence.
Respondents are also allowed to adduced evidence. Therefore, the
matter is remanded for fresh consideration. Parties shall appear
before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation on 21.4.2008.
The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
K.HEMA
JUDGE
tks