SABINA,J. - (1.) Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 5.1.2018 passed by the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, whereby, claim filed by the claimants, was allowed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Commissioner has erred in allowing the claim petition filed by the claimants. Claimants had failed to establish that there was any nexus between the cause of death and employment of the deceased. As per the post mortem report, deceased has died on account of cardiac failure. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Malikarjuna G. Hiremath Vs. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. (2009) 13 Supreme Court Cases 405 and Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Anr. (2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases 668.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents no.1 to 4, has opposed the appeal and has submitted that at the time of the accident, deceased Man Singh was working as a driver under respondent no.5. On 24.04.2016, Man Singh was driving the truck tanker bearing registration No. RJ-08-GA-0527. When the deceased reached Mangalam Cement Factory gate, he heard a sudden noise from the tyre of the truck tanker. On hearing the noise, Man Singh while trying to take out the jack from the cabin, felt pain in his abdomen. Man Singh informed Roshan, Bhagwan, Ratan and Khalasi and they immediately called the ambulance and Man Singh was taken to the hospital. However, on 25.04.2016 Man Singh died. In the facts of the present case, it was evident that the deceased had died in the course of his employment. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no substantial question of law involved in the present case which requires interference by this court. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha MACD 2019 (1) (SC)19, wherein it was held as under:- "At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the Act." learned counsel for the respondents has next placed reliance on the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Param Pal Singh (Mst.) Through Father Vs. M/s National Insurance Co. and Anr. MACD 2013 (SC)1, wherein it was held as under:- "27. Applying the various principles laid down in the above decisions to the facts of this case, we can validly conclude that there was CAUSAL CONNECTION to the death of the deceased with that of his employment as a truck driver. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a 45 years old driver meets with his unexpected death, may be due to heart failure while driving the vehicle from Delhi to a distant place called Nimiaghat near Jharkhand which is about 1152 kms. away from Delhi, would have definitely undergone grave strain and stress due to such long distance driving. The deceased being a professional heavy vehicle driver when undertakes the job of such driving as his regular avocation it can be safely held that such constant driving of heavy vehicle, being dependant solely upon his physical and mental resources and endurance, there was every reason to assume that the vocation of driving was a material contributory factor if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected death to occur which in all fairness should be held to be an untoward mishap in his life span. Such an 'untoward mishap' can therefore be reasonably described as an 'accident' as having been caused solely attributable to the nature of employment indulged in with his employer which was in the course of such employer's trade or business. 28. Having regard to the evidence placed on record there was no scope to hold that the deceased was simply travelling in the vehicle and that there was no obligation for him to undertake the work of driving. On the other hand, the evidence as stood established proved the fact that the deceased was actually driving the truck and that in the course of such driving activity as he felt uncomfortable he safely parked the vehicle on the side of the road near a hotel soon whereafter he breathed his last. In such circumstances, we are convinced that the conclusion of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation that the death of the deceased was in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the second respondent was perfectly justified and the conclusion to the contrary reached by the learned Judge of the High Court in the order impugned in this appeal deserves to be set aside. The appeal stands allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation shall stand restored and there shall be no order as to costs." ;