LAWS(BOM)-2005-10-21

DOCKENDALE SHIPPING Vs. JEVANBHAI RAMJI TANDEL

Decided On October 13, 2005
DOCKENDALE SHIPPING Appellant
V/S
JEVANBHAI RAMJI TANDEL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The First Appeal is directed against the judgment of the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation. The commissioner has granted the application filed by the workman. The appellants were directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 15 lacs towards compensation payable to the applicant. The applicant, i. e, the respondent herein was employed as a seaman with the appellant No. 1 company. The applicant had been in service from 18-5-1990. It appears that on 25-12-1990, he suffered a cerebral stroke and hemiplegia while at sea. He was, therefore, taken ashore and was treated in a hospital. Thereafter in january 1991, he was repatriated to India and was admitted to hospital for further treatment. It appears that or 11-2-1991, the respondent's son had him discharged from the hospital, against medical advice and returned with the respondent to their native place. The respondent-applicant claimed an amount of Rs. 15 lacs as compensation from the appellant contending that he has suffered from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

(2.) The respondent was unable to lead any oral evidence since he had suffered a paralytic stroke which affected his speech. Therefore, on an application made to the Commissioner, the evidence was recorded in Daman. The Commissioner noted that the respondent was unable to respond to the questions posed to him except by gesticulating. Even these gestures fell short of proving the respondent's case that he had suffered an injury arising out of the during the course of employment. The Master of the ship was examined on behalf of the appellants. The Commissioner after assessing the evidence on record held that the appellants are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 15 lacs to the respondent. On the basis of the agreement entered into between the employer- appellant and the Union. By an order dated 30-3-1997,the Commissioner allowed the claim.

(3.) Mr. Baig, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, submits that no evidence was on record indicating that the cerebral stroke suffered by the respondent is due to the nature of work that he was performing or that it had arisen out of and during the course of employment. The respondent was found lying in his cabin with his right hand partially immobilised. He was given immediate treatment and even after repatriation to India, he was being treated by the Doctors appointed by the appellants. The learned advocate submits that the evidence on record does not indicate in any manner that the nature of work which the respondent performed was such that it would lead to the respondent suffering a stroke. He relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Madan Harmat vs. M/s Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. and anr. , first Appeal No. 1107 of 1999 to submit that cerebral paralysis which the respondent suffered could not be considered to be an employment injury.