Dukalhinbai and Another vs R.V. Paranjpe and Another

B.M. Lal, J.—The short point involved in this appeal is whether the death occurred during the course of employment on account of cardiac failure the deceased employee''s dependents are entitled to claim compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act ?

One Itwari died on 19-10-79 on which day he was on duty and discharging his work to unload slag from wagons by shovel and worked for two hours. The deceased was getting Rs. 20/- per day as wages and according to the calculations, the dependents are entitled for compensation Rs. 21,600/- under the Workmen''s Compensation Act.

After the death of Itwari, the applicants who are his widow and son applied for the compensation before the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation, Durg who by the impugned order dated 9-6-81, rejected the application for compensation on the ground inter alia that the death so caused was due to heart failure, during the course of employment and thus, deceased Itwari did not suffer personal injury by accident and as such his dependents were not entitled to any compensation, against which the present appeal has been filed.

This fact is not denied that on the fateful day, i.e. 19-10-79 deceased Itwari was on duty and just after two hours, he complained pain in his chest to a co-worker and he (Itwari) went to a hotel, situated nearby and there he died instantaneously. Admittedly, since Itwari was on duty, Section 3 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act makes an employer liable for compensation if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The words ''arising out employment'' are plain enough and understood to mean "during the course of employment".

In the instant case Itwari died during the course of his employment. The fact that after two hours of his duty he complained pain in his chest. It appears that pain the chest of the deceased might be due to strain of unloading slag-wagons and that pain ultimately resulted in his death. In Gates v. Eitzillam''s Collieries Co. (1939) 2 AER 498 (CA) and Whittle v. Fobwavlse Steel Iron and Co. Ltd. (1936) 2 All. ER 1221 (CA) the ratio laid down supports the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants, who strenuously argued that during the course of employment if the employee on account of strenuous work sustains pain in chest and dies then certainly provision of Section 3 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act is attracted, and his dependents are entitled to get compensation.

The matter in issue is fully covered with the decision of this Court in Divisional Manager, MPSRTC v. Pushpabai 1980 II WN 75 wherein decisions in Cates case (supra) and Whittle''s case (supra) have been considered and this Court found that in such a set of circumstances, the dependents of the worker/employee are entitled to get compensation under the said Act.

From the discussion aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is allowed, and the order impugned is set aside. It is directed that the appellants are entitled to get compensation Rs. 21,600/-deposited with the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation, Durg. There shall be no order as to costs.