The Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation, Madras-2 vs Lalitha and 6 others

Govardhan, J.—This appeal is against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-1 (Commissioner for Workmen''s

Compensation-1) Madras dated 30-9-1987 in W.C. Case No. 110/1986. The applicant in her application, states as follows: The husband of the

first applicant Thiru Rajagopal was employed by the Opposite Party on 23-11-1985 as a driver in Route No. -515 and he had taken the bus from

Tiruchi to Coimbatore. He was again to drive back to Tiruchi from Coimbatore on 24-11-1985. When he was about to take the bus at

Coimbatore Bus Stand he suffered a heart attack. He was admitted in the hospital where he died. The death of Rajagopal occurred during the

course of his employment. The deceased was paid a sum of Rs. 1113/- per month as salary and he was aged 42 years. Hence the application for

payment of compensation of Rs. 71,396/-.

The Opposite Party in their counter contends as follows: The deceased driver died due to natural cause. There is no nexus between the death

and the employment. The mother of the deceased has filed a suit in the City Civil Court restraining the opposite party from making any payment to

the applicant. The suit is pending. The application is liable to be dismissed.

On the above pleadings, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour held an enquiry and has passed the impugned order directing the opposite party

to deposit a sum Rs. 71,396/- as compensation.

Aggrieved over the same, the opposite party has come forward with this appeal.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that the Deputy Commissioner has failed to see that the death of Rajagopal is due

to a natural cause of heart failure even before he has commenced his duty and was driving the vehicle and his death due to heart failure cannot be

attributed to any accident or caused in the course of employment.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would on the other hand argue that it is not necessary that the deceased should have been

driven a vehicle in order to hold that he met with an accident during the course of his employment so as to enable the applicant to get compensation

under Workmen''s Compensation Act. Section 3(1) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, is to the effect that if personal injury is caused to a

Workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer is liable to pay compensation in accordance with the

provisions of Chapter II. Whether the deceased had sustained any injury on account of the strain and stress he faced during the course of the

employment is the only question that has to be considered by us. In the decision reported in Amubibi v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd (1977-11 L.L.J.510)

Gujarat High Court it has been held that where death is due to coronary insufficiency during the course of employment it would amount to accident

and the dependant of the deceased is entitled to compensation. It has been held in the above decision that ""accident"" and ""injury'''' defined in

Section 3(1) need not be understood in a narrow constricted sense. In the decision reported in United India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Yashodhara

Amma & another (1990-1 L.L.J. 387) it has been held that the word ''accident'' found in Section 3(1) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act,

1923, has to be understood to mean a mishap or untoward event not expected or designed and that the workman actually got ill in the course of

his employment and though the illness was not an external injury, it was a serious injury to the heart and the strenuous driving accelerated his illness

which resulted in his death, and that the object of Section 3 is to give protection to the helpless dependants of such workers, taking a pragmatic

meaningful construction of the section. In the decision reported in Zubeda Bano & Others v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation &

others (1991-1 L.L.J. 66), it has been held that absence of ample evidence, should not relieve the Court of its duty to arrive at a conclusion on the

vital issues on the basis of available material, that the Evidence Act as such does not apply to the proceedings under the Workmen''s

Compensation Act and that the Workmen''s Compensation Act is a beneficial legislation intended to give some security to workmen in certain

types of employment and that the liability of the employer under the Act is conceptually quite different from the liability under tort and therefore the

Act should be construed in a broad and liberal manner, lest its evident object is defeated. After making such observations, the Bench has held that

the death of a bus driver of a State Transport Corporation who sustained heart attack and collapsed while changing destination name board is

death arising out of and in the course of employment.

In the present case, the deceased had driven the bus belonging to the respondent from Tiruchi to Coimbatore on the previous day. On the ill-

facted day, viz., 24th November, 1985, when he was about to take the bus from Coimbatore bus stand, he had suffered heart attack. As the

driver of the bus he should have brought the vehicle to the bus stand from the bus depot which is elsewhere in the Town. In these circumstances,

when we consider the above rulings, and apply the same to the facts of the present case, it would show that the death of Rajagopal husband of the

first applicant, is arising out of and in the course of employment and the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation has therefore rightly allowed

the application and directed the respondent to deposit the amount as payable to the dependents of the deceased and there is nothing to interfere

with the same. The appeal is without merits and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.