CoramThe Honourable Mr v. S. Vijayalakshmi2.Minor S. Pooja3.M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 31 -8-2007CoramThe Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARC.M.A.No.1593 of 2007 & M.P.No.1 of 2007The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,No.45, Moore Street,Chennai - 600 001....Appellant/III Opposite PartyVs.1.S. Vijayalakshmi2.Minor S. Pooja3.M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd.,Corporate Office-II,Khivraj Complex,477-482, Anna Salai,Nandanam,Chennai - 35.4.M/s.Universal Trading Co. Ltd.,C-3, Arunodaya Apartments,Second Madley, T.Nagar,Chennai - 600 017....Respondents/Respondents 1 & 2 and opposite parties 1 & 2This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the award dated12.04.2007 in W.C.No.242 of 2005 on the file of the Commissioner forWorkmen's Compensation, Deputy Commissioner of Labour - I, Chennai.For Appellant:Mr.N.VijayaraghavanJ U D G M E N TBy consent, the main civil miscellaneous appeal is taken up for finaldisposal.2.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the orderpassed in W.C.No.242 of 2005 dated 12.4.2007 passed by the DeputyCommissioner of Labour, Chennai, awarding compensation of Rs.3,14,285/- tothe respondents 1 and 2 herein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are asfollows:(a)The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the claim petitioncontending that the third respondent herein is the Principal employer, oneof the leading Heavy Vehicle Manufacturing Company, having its branchesand sales depots at various places in India and the 4th respondent hereinis the contractor to transport the chasis vehicle from Chennai to Alwar,Rajasthan State. The 4th respondent engaged one Sekar as driver to drivethe Chasis vehicle 'AL TUSKAR SUPER GOODS CHASIS' bering Trade Plate No.TN20TC 0286 and Chasis/Engine Nos.UWE523201/UWE390036 from sales yard,Kathivakkam to regional Sales Office, Alwar, Rajasthan by road.(b)During transit of the said vehicle, on 26.2.2004 at about 9.00a.m. in Maharashtra State, while the said Sekar was driving the chasis,due to the impact of stress and strain, he died. The said Sekar washaving a heavy vehicle driving licence and was receiving Rs.6,000/- permonth as salary, including incentives and that he was aged 35 years. Thefirst respondent is the widow of the said Sekar and the second respondentherein is the daughter of Sekar.(c)The accident was registered in Nagpur Taluk Police Station,Ahmednagar District, with Accident Death Registration No.8 of 2004. Thesaid Chasis was insured with the appellant Insurance Company, with policyNo.710500/31/03/29155 from 1.1.2004 to 31.12.2004 and cover note No.16468dated 20.2.2004. Since the said Sekar died during the course of theemployment, his widow and daughter filed the above claim petition claimingcompensation of Rs.10 lakhs under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923.(d)The said claim petition was resisted by the appellant InsuranceCompany, by contending that the said Sekar died due to the impact ofstress and strain occurred during the transit of the said heavy dutychasis and not because of any accident and therefore the Insurance Companyis not liable to pay any compensation.4.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, considering the Police report,Insurance Policy, Death Certificate, Heavy Motor Vehicle licence and LegalHeirship Certificate produced by the claimants, and having found that theaccident had occurred during the course of the employment and the vehiclewas insured with the appellant as on the date of the accident, held thatthe appellant is bound to pay compensation under the Workmen CompensationAct, 1923. The Deputy Commissioner also found that the deceased was aged34 years and was entitled to be assessed the minimum wage of Rs.3,229.40as per G.O.Ms.No.(2)102 Labour and Employment Department, dated 22.9.1999and arrived at a compensation of Rs.3,14,285/-. The appellant InsuranceCompany was directed to pay the said amount within 30 days failing which,the appellant was directed to pay 12% interest from the date of theapplication i.e., on 14.3.2005. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the death ofthe Sekar having been taken place not because of any accident, theappellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and there isno nexus between the employment and the death. The learned counsel alsocited the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2007 ACJ 1 (ShakuntalaChandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another) tosubstantiate his contention.6.The point in issue is whether the deceased Sekar was the driverof the Chasis and whether the death had occurred during the course of theemployment and whether the appellant, being the Insurance Company, isbound to pay compensation to the claimants.7.The deceased was employed as driver and during the course of theemployment, that is, while he was driving the Chasis at Maharashtra, dueto stress and strain, he died. The police report Ex.M-2 also disclosesthe same. The said Chasis having been insured, the Insurance Companyviz., the appellant is bound to pay compensation under the WorkmenCompensation Act, 1923. The contention that no accident had taken placeand hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation cannotbe raised when the claim is made under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.8.The Supreme Court decision cited by the learned counsel for theappellant reported in 2007 ACJ 1 (Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v.Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another) will not help the appellant in anymanner as the person, who died in the said case was a cleaner of thelorry, and the cleaner of the lorry may not have any stress or strain likethe driver and that the death due to heart attack to the said cleaner wasnot found strenuous as he suffered cardiac arrest when he was gettingdown from the vehicle. In paragraph 29 of the Judgment, the SupremeCourt held that circumstances must exist to establish that death wascaused by reason of failure of heart was because of stress and strain ofthe work. Stress and strain resulting in a sudden heart failure in a caseof the present nature would not be presumed and no legal friction cantherefore be raised. It is also held that each case has to be consideredin its own facts and no hard and fast rule can be laid down therefor.9.In this case, there is a clear pleading in the claim petitionthat the deceased died at Maharashtra at about 9.00 a.m. on 26.2.2004while he was employed as driver, due to the impact of stress and strainduring transit of the said heavy duty chasis from Madras to Alwar. TheDeputy Commissioner of Labour also gave a specific finding that thedeceased Sekar died when he was riding the chasis and he was not havingany such disease previously and he died only due to stress and strain. Inview of the said categorical finding, which is pleaded and establishedthat the said Sekar died during the course of the employment due to stressand strain, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, is right inordering compensation. Insofar as the quantum also the authority appliedMinimum Wages Act and arrived at just compensation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10.I do not find any merit in the civil miscellaneous appeal and thesame is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is alsodismissed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarvrTo1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour - I,Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation,Chennai.1 CC To Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate, SR NO.54789.C.M.A.No.1593 of 2007 KG(CO)RVL 07.09.2007