1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “Act of 1923”) has been filed by the appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the order/award dated 23.03.2017 passed by Commis-sioner-cum-Labour Court (for short “Commissioner”) Jagdalpur, CG in Case No. 30/2014/EC Act/Fatal dismissing the claim for compensation instituted by the appellants under Section 22 of the Act of 1923.
2. The appeal was admitted for hearing on 22.08.2017 on the following substantial question of law:
Whether the finding recorded by the Commissioner to the extent that the death of the deceased Vijay Singh was not arising out of and in the course of employment and thereby denying the claim to the claimants was proper,legal and justified?
3. Facts of the case in brief are that deceased Vijay Singh – the husband of appellant/claimant No.1 was working in the employment of respondent No.1 herein to driver the vehicle bearing registration No. CG-17-H-7479. On 10.10.2013 the said vehicle was acquired by respondents No. 3 and 4 for be-ing used in the Assembly Elections at Kanker to carry the police force. On 03.11.2013 Vijay Singh developed pain in his chest and was admitted by the BSF Camp people to Komal Dev Hospital, Kanker where he died during treatment due to cardiac arrest. At the time of death, he was aged about 45 years and was getting the salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The vehicle in which the deceased was employed as driver was insured with respondent No.2/insurer.
4. Respondent No.1/employer filed the written statement and admitted that deceased Vijay Singh was in his employment as driver and he was pay-ing to him Rs. 6,000/- per month as salary. He has stated that after coming to know about the incident, he provided the immediate relief by paying Rs. 15,000/-. He has admitted that when his vehicle was acquired by respondent No.3 for transportation of the Protection Force, the deceased was driving the same and that after his death respondent No.3 paid him Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation as per the rules of the Government. Rest of pleas were how-ever denied by respondent No.1.
5. Respondent No.2/insurer also filed its written statement and denied the claim averments including the death of the deceased in the employment of respondent No.1/ owner of the vehicle. It is averred that since the claimants have already been paid Rs. 5,00,000/- by respondent No.3, they are not entitled to get any extra amount as compensation.
6. On the basis of pleadings and the material available on record, learned Commissioner framed the following issues for determination:-
“(I) Whether death of husband of claimant No.1 namely Vijay Singh took place as a result of accident during the course of the employment of vehicle of respondent No.1 bearing registration No. CG-17/H/7479?
(ii) What was the age and monthly income of the deceased at the time of death?
(iii) Whether on the date of incident the offending vehicle was in-sured with respondent No.2, if yes – the effect?
(iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation for the death of the deceased, if yes – how much and from whom?
(v) Whether on account of the objections raised by the respon-dents in the written statements, the claim is liable for rejection?
(vi) Relief and cost?”
7. Issue Nos. 1 and 4 were decided in negative; issue Nos. 3 and 5 were decided in positive; in respect of issue No. 2 the age of the deceased at the time of incident was determined as 45 years and his monthly income was taken as Rs. 6,000/-. While deciding issue No. 6 regarding relief and cost, the claim was rejected. Hence this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claim application has been wrongly dismissed on the ground that the deceased employee suf-fered heart attack. He submits that the heart attack has the direct nexus with the work which caused stress and therefore he suffered heart attack and for that the Commissioner should have allowed the claim of the appellants. He placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of C. Man-jamma v. Divisional Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd reported in (2022) 6 SCC 206 and submits that substantial question is to be answered in favour of the claimants.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that there was no di-rect nexus with the cause of death and the employment as the deceased did not die in the course and arising out of the employment. In support of his submission reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another reported in (2007) 11 S CC 668.
10. Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 submit that though the vehicle driven by the deceased was acquired for election duty yet as the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- has already been paid to the claimants which has also been admitted by the claimant No.1, no further liability of payment of compensation can be fastened on them.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material avail-able on record.
12. Learned Commissioner while deciding issue No.1 recorded a specific finding that the deceased died due to heart attack and therefore his death cannot be attributed to be during the course and arising out of the employ - ment.
13. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with an identical issue in the matter of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti (supra) has held as under:
“16. Before we analyse the provisions of the Act, we may no-tice that in the claim petition, there was no allegation that (I) the deceased met with his death by reason of any strain of work; (ii) appellant had no personal knowledge as regards quantum or na-ture of work required to be performed by the deceased; and (iii) as to how severe strain during his service was caused.
17. The deceased had admittedly suffered a massive heart at-tack. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the heart attack was caused while doing any job. Even according to the em-ployer, he at the relevant time was merely getting down from the vehicle.
18. The driver of the vehicle who was brother of the deceased was the best witness to state as to under what circumstances the deceased met with his death or whether the death had occurred due to some strain. He did not examine himself. The doctor who performed post-mortem examination was also not examined.
36. “Only because the cause of death was due to heart attack, the same by itself may not be a ground to arrive at a conclusion that an accident had occurred resulting in injury.
38. Unless evidence is brought on record to elaborate that the death byway of cardiac arrest has occurred because of stress or strain, the Commissioner would not have jurisdiction to grant dam-ages. In other words, the claimant was bound to prove jurisdic-tional fact before the Commissioner. Unless such jurisdictional are found, the Commissioner will have no jurisdiction to pass an order. It is now well settled that for arriving at a finding of a jurisdictional fact, reference to any precedent would not be helpful as a little de-viation from the facts of a decided case or an additional fact may make a lot of difference by arriving at a correct conclusion. For the said purpose, the statutory authority is required to pose unto him-self the right question.”
14. In the matter of C. Manjamma (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court reversing the judgment passed by the Commissioner granting compensation in favour of the claimants therein. Supreme Court observed that there was a specific finding of fact given by the Commissioner that no substantial question of law is involved and therefore the High Court fell in error in entertaining the appeal.
15. From the judicial pronouncements referred to above it is thus clear that in order to receive compensation under the Employee Compensation Act the death should be during and arising out of the employment and that there has to be direct nexus between the two. The claimant No.1 in the claim peti-tion has stated that her husband was working in the employment of respon-dent No.1 to drive the vehicle described above which at the relevant time was pressed into service in assemble elections for transporting the Police force. She has further stated that her husband died on account of heart at-tack. However, in her statement so recorded, she does not even whisper that it is the nature of employment or the magnitude of work which caused stress or strain leading to heart attack resulting in his unfortunate death. It is also not manifest from the pleadings that the deceased employee was having any heart related ailment or the employer was ever made aware of the same, but even then there was no respite given by him. The post mortem report (Ex.P-1) shows the mode of death as syncope and the death was natural. Even the doctor conducting autopsy who could have given some clue about the health history of the deceased, has not been examined. Moreover, an amount of Rs. 5,15,000/- (Rs. 15,000/- by the employer and Rs. 5,00,000/- from the State) has admittedly been disbursed to the claimant/appellant No.1.
16. The overall view of this Court on the basis of material on record thus is that in this case there is nothing to establish that the death of the deceased by way of cardiac arrest was because of the stress and strain of the work. Causal connection between the death and accident arising out of or in the course of employment is absolutely missing in this case. Thus the finding recorded by learned Commissioner rejecting the claim of the claimants/ap-pellants for compensation appears to be well-grounded and calls for no inter-ference by this Court. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly in favour of the respondents. Appeal is thus devoid of merit and dismissed as such.
