LAWS(BOM)-1970-12-2

KAMLABAI CHINTAMAN Vs. DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL RAILWAY NAGPUR

Decided On December 11, 1970
KAMLABAI CHINTAMAN Appellant
V/S
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL RAILWAY, NAGPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KAMALABAI the widow of the deceased Chintaman, a Railway Engine Driver, having been aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner. Workmen's Compensation, Wardha, come here in appeal. The appellant filed an application for compensation under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Her husband was driving a railway engine on duty on 1st of November, 1960. He was taking the Down Goods Train from Majri to Chanda and other places. At 10 A. M. he took charge of the Goods Train. After some detention and shunting he took the train to Bhandak. There they stopped for unloading and went to Tadali. There they did some shunting and were also detained and then they reached Chanda at 4 P. M. They had to unload some of the packages there. They completed the unloading some oil tanks were attached there. The engine was then going in reverse. Chintaman was driving it. At that time, the Assistant Station Master on duty informed the Guard that another Down Goods Train was passing through via the first loop and therefore, they had to stop their shunting. The Guard therefore, showed a red flag to the driver and cautioned him to stop. Chintaman stopped the engine but was anxious to know why he had stopped the work. He told the Guard that they should finish the shunting earlier, so that they could reach Ballarshah as early as possible. The Guard then explained to him why he had shown him the red flag. While Chintaman was taking to the Guard and the Guard was facing the other goods train which was coming. Chintaman sat down there and then collapsed. He expired before any medical help could be given to him. His body was taken for post mortem examination and the cause of death was found to be heart failure due to valvular incompetency and atheroma of the arteries.

(2.) THE respondent Central Railway denied their liability but admitted that Chintaman was in the Railway service working as a railway engine driver. They admitted all the details mentioned by the appellant but pleaded that deceased Chintaman died a natural death because of the failure of his heart. According to them, a railway driver was expected to be on duty for twelve hours but Chintaman had actually completed only seven hours duty and according to them, there was no overstrain anywhere to him during the course of his working. They, therefore, say that there was no casual connection of the employment with the ultimate death.

(3.) THE learned Commissioner framed the necessary issues on the pleadings of the parties and found that the accident did take place in the course of but not out of the employment of the deceased. He was not overstrained due to the working on the train and therefore, according to him, his heart failure was not on account of overwork. Accordingly, therefore, he dismissed the application filed by the appellant. The point, therefore, that arises here for consideration is to see whether any substantial question of law arises in this appeal.