JYOTHI ADEMMAversusPLANT ENGINEER, NELLORE AND ANR.

A                               JYOTHI ADEMMA
                                         v.
                   PLANT ENGINEER, NELLORE AND ANR.

                                  JULY 11, 2006

B         [ARJJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, 11.]


          Labour Laws:

          Workmen Compensation Act, 1923; Section 3:
c
            Workman died at workplace due to heart al/ack-Compensation-
    Awarded by Commissioner-Challenge to-Allowed by High Court holding
     that death of the workman not caused by any accident arising out of and in
     the course of employment-On appeal, Held: For seeking compensation, the
D   petitioner requires to establish some causal connection between the death of
     the workman and his employment-'f the employment is a contriblllory cause/
    accelerated the death, it can be said that death arose out of the employment
    and the employer would be liable-In the instant case, doctor's report confirms
     that there is no scope for any stress or strain in performing duties by the
     workman-Hence, the findings recorded by the High Court does not suffer
E   from any infirmi~y-However, since the amount of compensation already paid
     to the wife of the deceased, the amount so paid shall not be recovered though
     she is not entitled to any compensation.

          Words and Phrases:

F         'Accident '-Meaning of in the context of Workmen Compensation Act.

           The appellant's husband was working in a Thermal Station. He died
    at the work place. Appellant filed an application before the Commissioner
    seeking compensation on the ground that the death was caused due to
    stress and strain of the working conditions, and therefore, attributable to
G   an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The
    Commissioner made an award in favour of the appellant. The respondents
    filed an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act before
    the High Court. The High Court observed that the workman died due to
    heart attack at the work place; that the nature of the job which the
H                                        400
             JYOTHI ADEMMA v. PLANT ENGINEER. NELLORE                    40]

deceased workman was doing could not have caused any stress and strain           A
and, therefore, the death due to heart attack can not be said to have been
caused by any accident arising out of !1nd in the course of his employment.
Hence the present appeal.

      The appellant contended that whenever a person dies as a result of
heart attack at the work place, it can be said that he died due to the stress    B
and strain of the working conditions; that the Commissioner was right in
awarding the compensation as he had indicated reasons in support of his
conclusion, therefore, the order of the Commissioner should be restored.

      Disposing of the appeal, the Court
                                                                                 c
      HELD: I.I. In terms of Section 3(1) of the Workmen Compensation
Act, it has to be established that there was some causal connection between
the death of the workman and his employment. If the workman dies as a
natural result of the disease which he was suffering or while suffering from
a particular disease he dies of that disease as a result of wear a11d tear, of   D
the employment no liability would be fixed upon the employer. But if the
employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the death, or if the
death was due not only to the disease but also the disease coupled with
the employment, then it can be said that the death arose out of the
employment and the employer would be liable. (403-G-H; 404-A]
                                                                                 E
     1.2. The expression "accident" means an untoward mishap which is
not expected or designed. "Injury" means physiological injury. It was
observed that the expression "accident" is used in the popular and
ordinary sense of the word as denoting an unlooked for mishap or an
untoward event which is not expected or designed. (404-B-C]
                                                                                 F
     Fenton v. Thorley & Co. Ltd., (1903) AC 448 and Trim Joint District,
School Board of Management v. Kelly, (1914) A.C. 676, referred to.

      1.3. In the present case it has been brought on record that the
deceased was suffering from chest disease and was previously being treated       G
for such disease. The High Court also noted that the job of the deceased
was only to switch on or off and, therefore, the doctor had clearly opined
that there was no scope for any stress or strain in his duties. In view of
the factual findings recorded the High Court's judgment does not suffer
from any infirmity. (404-DI
                                                                                 H
     402                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R .

.A         1.4. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, no recovery
     shall be made from the appellant of any amount paid, though she is not
     entitled lo any compensation. 1404-Fl

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 620 I of 2004.

B          From the Judgment and Order dated 12.9.2003 of High Court of
     Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal against Order No.
     3387/2001.

           V. Sridhar Reddy and Abhijit Sengputa for the Appellants.

C          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Appellant calls in question' legality of the
     judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High
     Court holding that the appellant was not entitled to any compensation under
     the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (in short the 'Act') .....he appeal filed
D    by the respondents under Section 30 of the Act was allowed by the High
     Court. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (in short
     'Commissioner') had awarded a sum ofRs.6L236/- by award dated 16.6.2001,
     which was challenged by the respondents before the High Court.

           Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
E
            Mr. J. Venkaiah, the appellant's husband (hereinafter referred to as the
     'deceased workman'), was working in Nellore Thermal Station, Nellore. On
     24.9.1994 he died at the work spot. Appellant filed an application before the
     Commissioner claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Her stand in the claim
.F   petition was that the death was due to stress and strain closely linked with the
     employment of the deceased workman and, therefore, attributable to an
     accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The plea found
     favour with the Commissioner who made the award as noted above. The
     respondents filed an appeal under Section 30 of the Act before the High
     Court. The primary stand was that the deceased workman did not die on
G    account of any injury sustained by him "in any accident arising out of and
     in the course of his employment". The High Court noted that there was no
     injury as such, but he died due to heart attack at the work spot. The High
     Court found that the :iature of the job which the deceased workman was
     doing could not have caused any stress and strain and, therefore, the death
H    due to heart attack can not be said to have been caused by any accident
      JYOTHI ADEMMA v. PLANT ENGINEER, NELLORE (PASAY AT, J.] 403

arising out of and in the course of his employment.                                A
      In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant su!Jmitted
that whenever a person dies as a result of heart attack at the work spot, it can
be said that he died due to the stress and strain of the working conditions. He,
therefore, pleaded that the order of tht: Commissioner should be restored and
that of the High Court be set aside, as the Commissioner had indicated             B
reasons in support of his conclusions.

      There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents.

      Section 3(1) of the Act which is relevant for the purpose of this case
reads as follows:-                                                                 C
        "3. Employer's liability for Compensation. - (!)If personal injury is
        caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of
        his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in
        accordance with the provisions of this Chapter :
                                                                                   D
        Provided that the employer shall not be so liable - (a) in respect of
        any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of
        the workman for a period exceeding three days;

        (b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death or permanent total
        disablement, caused by an accident which is directly attributable to -     E
        (i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence
        of drink or drugs, or

        (ii) the willful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly
        given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the
        safety of workmen, or                                                      F
       (iii) the willful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety
       guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the
       purpose of securing the safety of workmen."

      Under Section 3( 1) it has to be established that there was some casual      G
connection between the death of the workman and his employment. If the
workman dies a natural result of the disease which he was suffering or while
suffering from a particular disease he dies of that disease as a result of wear
and tear, of the employment no liability would be fixed upon the employer.
But if the employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the death,
                                                                                   H
    404                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A or if the death was due not only to the disease but also the disease coupled
    with the employment, then it can be said that the death arose out of the
    employment and the employer would be liable.

          The expression "accident" means an untoward mishap which is not
    expected or designed. ''Injury" means physiological injury. In Fenton v.
B   Thorley & Co. ltd. ( 1903) AC 448, it was observed that the expression
    "accident" is used in the popular and ordinary sense of the word as denoting
    an unlooked for mishap or an untow;ird event which is not expected or
    designed. The above view of Lord Macnaghten was qualified by the speech
    of Lord Haldane A.C. in Trim Joint District, School Board of Management
C   v. Kel(v, (1914) A.C. 676 as follows:

                "I think that the context shows that in using the word "designed"
             Lord Macnaghten was referring to designed by the sufferer''.

          In the present case it has been brought on record that the deceased was
D suffering from chest disease and was previously being treated for such disease.
    The High Court also noted that the job of the deceased was only to switch
    on or off and, therefore, the doctor had clearly opined that there was no scope
    for any stress or strain in his duties. In view of the factual findings recorded
    the High Court's judgment does not suffer from any infirmity.

E         However, it has to be noted that the amount has already been paid to
    the appellants, as stated by learned counsel.

          Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, we direct that there
    shall be no recovery from the appellan.t of any amount paid, though in view
    of our judgment she is not entitled to any compensation.
F
          The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

    S.K.S.                                                    Appeal disposed of.