APHC010020692024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 16 OF 2024 Appeal under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, against the Judgment dated 28-03-2023 passed in E.C. Case No 03/2020, on the file of Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant of Labour, Guntur. Commissioner Between: The New India Assurance Co Ltd, Rep. by its Divisional Manager and Sons Club and Reading Room Complex, 0pp. to Hariharamahal, Koritepaud,Guntur City, Guntur District LVR Policy No. 62090031120100002541 Valid from 23-2-2013 to 22-2-2014 ...Appellant/s AND 1. Miriyala Siva Kumari, W/o. Durga Rao Aged about 47 Koppuravuru Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District 2. Miriyala Siva Sankara Rao, S/o. Durga Rao, Aged about 30 years, Koppuravuru Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District 3. Miriyala Ramesh, S/o. Durga Rao, Aged about 27 years, Koppuravuru Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District years. % 4. Vinnakota Sivaiah, S/o. Nagendram, (Owner of the lorry AP 07 TB 1295) H.No. 3-134, Koppuravuru Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District. ...Respondents lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order and decree made in E.C. Case No: 03/2020 Dated: 28-03-2023 on the file of Commissioner for Employees Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur Counsel for the Appellant: Smt Kesari Kumari Nemla, representing Sri Amancharla Satish Babu Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Ms.SLN Harika, representing Sri Uma Maheswar Katakamsetty The Court made the following order: r APHC010020692024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER ' TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Np: 16/2024 Between: 1.THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LVR AND SONS CLUB AND READING ROOM COMPLEX, OPP* TO HARIHARAMAHAL, KORITEPAUD, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT POLICY NO. 62090031120100002541 VALID FROM 23-2-2013 TO 22-2-2014 ...APPELLANT AND 1.MIRIYALA SIVA KUMARI, W/0. DURGA RAO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, KOPPURAVURU VILLAGE, PEDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.MIRIYALA SIVA SANKARA RAO, S/0. DURGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, KOPPURAVURU VILLAGE, PEDAKAKANI GUNTUR DISTRICT 3.MIRIYALA RAMESH, S/0. DURGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, KOPPURAVURU VILLAGE, PEDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 4.VINNAKOTA SIVAIAH, S/0. NAGENDRAM, (OWNER OF THE LORRY AP 07 TB 1295) H.NO. 3-134, KOPPURAVURU VILLAGE, PEDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. MANDAL, ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Judgmerit dated 28- 03-2023 passed in E.C. Case No 03/2020, on the file of COMMISSIONER against ordersbegs to present this FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION and ASSISTANT OF LABOUR, GUNTUR lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to condone the delay of (228 ) days in filing the above C M A filed against E.C. Case No: 03/2020, dated 28-03- COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, GUNTUR and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2024 COMMISSIONER 2023 on the file of & ASSISTANT Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased,to suspend the the order and decree made in E.C. Case No: 03/2020 Dated: 28-03-2023on the file of COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION & ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR GUNTURand pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1.AMANCHARLASATISH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. UMA MAHESWAR KATAKAMSETTY The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:16/2024 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is preferred by Insurer assailing order dated 28.03.2023 passed in E.C. Case No.03/2020 on the file of Court of Commissioner for Employees Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur (hereinafter, for short ‘Court of Commissioner’), by which it was ordered to pay compensation of ?5,57,874/- on account of death. 2. Parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before ’ the Court of Commissioner. 3. Brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:- (a) Wife of deceased along with two children preferred claim before Court of Commissioner claiming compensation under Section 22(1) of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. i deceased stated to be heavy vehicle driver engaged by opposite party-1. The lorry owned by opposite party - 2. The vehicle was f hired for transport of goods to Vizag and from there to Koyyalagudem and from there to Khammam for picking up another The 2 CGR, J CMA No. 16 of 2024 load of goods. In^ process, deceased had travelled considerable miles, while vehicle was returning from Koyyalagudem - Khammam, en route he suffered with heart attack and succumbed when vehicle was near Aswaraopet. The incident occurred 12.11.2013 at about 05.00 p.m. Incident was reported to police, who registered Crime No.209/2013, after conducting inquest and postmortem, body was handed over to the claimants, deceased stated to be aged 49 yeafs and earning about f7,000/- per month towards salaries besides commission of f4,000/- month, accordingly claim was laid for an amount of f6,00,000/- under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act. on The per The employer was arrayed as opposite party - 1 and insurer of lori^ as opposite party - 2. The employer filed written statement admitting the relationship between the deceased and him, besides stating that the lorry was duly insured with opposite party - 2 and . as the incident occurred during the course of employment, in view I of subsistence of valid driving license and insurance, it was pleaded that the liability, if any, would be on opposite party - 2 only. Opposite party - 2 also filed counter denying the occurrence of incident, the relationship between deceased and opposite party - 1. Further it was also denied that deceased died due to (b) 3 CGR. J CMA No. 16 of 2024 heart attack and that said eventuality was not covered under the policy. In sum and substance, stand was taken that there nexus between the death and alleged accident, even the amount of compensation was also disputed to be on higher side. was no (c) In order to prove the case of claimants, wife of deceased examined as A.W. 1, elder son as A.\A/.2 and cleaner of the lorry A.W.3, besides marking Exs.AI to A4. On behalf of the Insurer, their officer was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B1 policy. was as (d) Based on the pleadings. Court of Commissioner framed following issues: 1) Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he died due to personal injuries he received in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment? or not, under Opposite Party - 1. Amount of compensation payable? to the applicants. Who are liable to pay the compensation?' 2) 3) On appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Commissioner Had come to conclusion that the deceased while (e) on duty, suffered with heart attack due to stress and strain. Therefore, the cause of death had direct nexus with his employment and further that the deceased was duly employed with 4 CGR, J CMA No. 16 of 2024 opposite party - 1 meaning thereby, the relationship of employer- employee was also held in favour of claimants. In view of these I two aspects being decided affirmatively, considering the age of deceased as 49 years and computing minimum wages as payable to heavy vehicle driver, assessed the income as f7,091/- and accordingly, a compensation of ?5,55,874/- came to be awarded. (f) Assailing the same, present appeal is filed by Insurer. . 4. Heard Smt.Kesari Kumari Nemla, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri Amahcharla Satish Babu, learned counsel for appellant and Ms.SLN Harika, learned counsel, representing on behalf of Sri Uma Maheswar Katakamsetty, learned counsel for respondents. 5. Learned counsel for appellant raised following substantial question of law for consideration of this court; Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the findings recorded by Court of Commissioner with regard to the death of deceased to be on account of heart bttack due to stress and strain in course of employment entitling to claim compensation under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act suffered from perversity? 5 CGR, J CMANo.ie of 2024 6. Learned counsel for appellant contended that there is no clear-cut evidence to show that deceased died due to heart attack i and that the same was on account of stress and strain in the course of his employment and mere postmortem report suggesting the cause of death to be on account of heart attack would not be conclusive and the claimants have to discharge their burden of proof of establishing the factum of death on account of heart attack. It is her submission .that the factum of suffering heart attack should have co-relation with the cause for stress and strain which can only be established through medical opinion by examining the doctor, as the same is lacking in the present case, the findings recorded i by Commissioner to the effect that deceased suffered heart attack during course of employment suffers from manifest illegality and therefore perverse. In support of her submissions, reliance has been placed on the following judgments. (i) Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shakuntala f Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & another^ M2007) 11 SCC 668 6 CGR, J CMA No. 16 of 2024 ■ (N) Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jyothi Ademma v. I Plant Engineer, Nellore & another^ (iii) Judgment of the High Court of Madras in Life Insurance I Corporation v. Minor RohinP (iv) Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Alka Shukla v. Life Insurance Corporation of India'* 7. Opposing the contentions above, learned counsel for respondents/claimants supported the impugned order by . contending that the Court of Commissioner has clearly analyzed the evidence on record, both oral arid documentary, for coming to conclusion that the deceased died due to heart attack, which a result of stress ahd strain in the course of employment. Even the evidence bn record indicated that the deceased never had any prior or past history of heart ailment and heart stroke was first of its nature and further the factum of death on account of heart attack is clearly evident from the postmortem report, which is crucial piece of evidence, therefore, the findings recorded by Tribunal cannot be • said to be perverse in any manner. She further contended that was 2 (2006) 5 see 513 ^ 2012 see Online Mad 1050 (2019) 6 see 64 7 CGR, J CMA No. 16 of 2024 Court of Commissioner is last fact finding authority, such findings of fact cannot be disturbed and no substantial question of law would arise to reappreciate the evidence on record. In support of her submissions, reliance has been placed on the following I judgments: Judgment of this Court in Chadalavada Srilakshmi and I others v. B.Nageswara Rao and another® Judgment of this Court in Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., v. Vaniipenta Manikyamma and t others® (iii) Judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., V. Sambireddy Venkataramana and five others^ I (iv) Judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Chukkala Eshwari and others® (i) (ii) I 5 2024 see Online AP 1939 ® 2025 see Online AP 1051 ^ eMA No.864 of 2008, judgment dated 19.07.2022 ® 2024 see Online AP 897 8 CGR, J CMA No. 16 of 2024 (V) Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.Manjamma and . another v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Compa Limited® ny 8. Learned counsel for appellant mainly relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Shakuntala’s case' and drawn attention of this Court in particular to following paras: 22. There are a large number of English and American decisions, some of which have been taken Corpn. [(1996) 6 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1361] in regard to essential ingredients for such finding and the attracting the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. principles are: 6t note of in ESI tests The (1) There must be a causal connection between the injury and the accident and the accident and the work done i the course of employment. (2) The onus is upon the applicant to show that it in was the work and the resulting strain which contributed to aggravated the injury. or (3) if the evidence brought on records establishes a greater probability which satisfies a reasonable man that the work contributed to the causing of the personal injury, it would be enough for the workman to succeed, but the same would depend upon the fact of each case. ‘’(2022) 6 see 206 • '*^5 9 CGR, J CMA No. 16 of 2024 23. Injury suffered should be a physiological injury. Accident, ordinarily, would have to be understood as unforeseen or uncomprehended or could not be foreseen or comprehended. A finding of fact, thus, 'has to be arrived at, inter alia, having regard to the nature of the work and the situation in which the deceased was placed. I 24. There is a crucial link between the causal connections of . employment with death. Such a link with evidence cannot be a matter of surmise or conjecture. If a finding is arrived at without pleading or legal evidence the statutory authority will commit a jurisdictional error while exercising jurisdiction. 25. An accident may lead to death but that an accident had taken place must be proved. Only because a death has taken place in course of employment will not amount to accident. In other words, death must arise out of accident. There is no presumption that an accident had occurred. 26. In a case of this nature to prove that accident has taken place, factors'which would have to be established, inter alia, are: (7) stress and strain arising during the course of employment. (2) nature of employment. (3) injury aggravated due to stress and strain. 10 CGR, J CMA No. 16 of 2024 27. The deceased was travelling in a vehicle. The same by itself cannot give rise to strenuous. 28. Only because a person dies of heart does not give rise to automatic presumption that the same was by way of accident. A person may be suffering from a heart disease although he may not be aware of the same. Medical opinion will be of relevance providing guidance court in this behalf. an inference that the job was attack, the same to 29. Circumstances must exist to establish that death caused by reason of failure of heart was because of stress and strain of work. Stress and strain resulting in a sudden heart failure in a case of the present nature was would not be presumed. No legal fiction therefor can be raised. As a person suffering from a heart disease may not be aware thereof, medical opinion therefore wottld be of relevance. Each case, therefore, has to be considered on its own fact and no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down therefor.” 9. By referring' to aforesaid principles and also observations made, it has been contended that mere death on account of heart attack does not raise an automatic presumption that the on aqcount of accident, unless the same is supported by proper medical opinion. In the facts and circumstances of the no such medical opinion has been brought on record by the same was case, since 11 CGR, J CMA No. 16 of 2024 claimants, it cannot be said that the heart attack has resulted only on account of stress and strain while driving the' lorry. 10. A close glance of aforesaid observations of Hon’ble Apex f Court indicates the relevancy of medical opinion to suggest that a person suffered from heart disease, and it has also been stated that each case has to be decided on its own facts and that no hard and fast rule can be laid down for that purpose. Even otherwise, medical opinion referred to above would necessarily not be only that of the doctor upon examination, it can even be in any other form of evidence as well. One cannot dispute or deny that even postmortem report, which normally would be conducted by medical officer of Government Hospital, can be considered as one such piece of evidence. Either a doctor or any piece of medical opinion would only suggest or throw light on the cause of death, but cannot pierce and go deep into to make a further assessment of the reasons for cause of heart attack. It is the pleaded cape of claimants that the deceased suffered heart attack due to nature of work he was undertaking. The postmortem report, which is marked as one of the exhibits and also evidence of R.W.3, cleaner of bus spoke of the cause of death. In considered opinion of this Court even postmortem report can be valid piece of evidence to come to 12 CGR, J CMA No. 16 of 2024 conclusion for the cause of death. The deceased driver and healthy. The test to be applied is to see whether the work and the resulting stress and strain have cause of accident or injury. was hale any co-relation or nexus in 11. Learned counsel for respondent while addressing aforesaid aspect has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in C.Manjamma’s case* and that of coordinate bench judgments of this Court in Chadalavada Srilakshmi Vaniipenta Manikyamma and others' and Chukkala and others®, which also and others®, Eshwari were essentially considering the inquest report and postmortem reports for coming to conclusion the cause in none of those cases examined to prove aforesaid aspect. Normally, only if person suffers from heart attack and he is rushed to hospital for treatment, the doctors who treated him be in a position to ^ive evidence speaking about the attack and also the real health condition of such of death to be on account of heart attack and any doctor in specific came to be may cause of heart person. But in cases where a person dies on account of heart attack even before he has been taken to hospital for treatment, the only way of finding out the cause of death would be by conducting postmortem , even such postmortem would be conducted by qualified doctor. 13 CGR, J CMA No. 16 of 2024 Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, postmortem report can safely be taken into consideration for the purpose of I ascertaining the cause of death. Learned counsel for appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jyott Ademma’s case^, wherein it is observed as follows: 12. “8. In the present case, it has been brought on record that the deceased was 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.” Based on evidence on record, finding of fact was arrived at in that particular case that nature of the job was that of switching on and off at Thermal Power Station, coupled with doctor's evidence, it was opined that it does not give scope for any stress or strain in performing duties. Whereas in the present case, the i facts are completely different from those. Here, the deceased was working as heavy vehicle driver. Therefore, the said judgment 13. 14 CGR, J CMA No. 16 of 2024 does not really have any application to the facts of the present case. 14. Learned counsel for Madras High Court in Minor Rohini Hon'ble Apex Court in Alka Shukla on account of heart attack as such, therefore, arise. These two judgments relation to appellant has referred to judgment s case= and judgment of the of ’s case^ to contend that dying cannot be attributable to any accident question of granting compensation would not essentially were being dealt with in coverage under life insurance but not The parameters for an insurance under any special enactment, granting compensation which is beneficial pi different footing. consideration of ^der Workmen's Compensation Act piece of legislation completely stand on 15. Cases of deceased truck heart attack during the before this Court and drivers, who died course of their job, efll for consideration as well as Hon'ble Apex Court. In one such V. National Insurance Company considering relatively similar on account of case, in Param Pal Singh Limited'”, the Hon'ble Apex Court, (2013) 3 see 409 15 CGR, J CMA No. 16 of 2024 facts while dealing with the provisions of Employees r I Compensation Act, held as under; “29. 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-year-old driver meets with his unexpected death, may be due to heart failure while driving the vehicle from Delhi to a distant place called I Nimiaghat near Jharkhand which is about 1152 km away from Delhi, would have definitely undergone grave strain and stress due to such long distance driving. The deceased being a profe'ssional 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 dependent 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 sote cause that accelerated his unexpected death to occur which in all fairness should be held to be an untoward mishap in his lifespan. Such an “untoward mishap can therefore be reasonably described as an “accident” as having been caused solely attributable to the nature of employment indulged ir| with his employer which was in the course of sucVi employer's trade or business. 16 CGR, J CMA No. 16 of 2024 16. Following aforesaid judgment, Coordinate Benches of this Court also expressed similar view in Chadalavada Srilakshmi’s case®, Vaniipenta Manikyamma’s case® and Chukkala Eshwari’s case®. 17. Keeping in view aforesaid judgments of this Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court, it has to be seen whether the foundational . facts pleaded were sufficiently proved and the findings of Court of I Commissioner really suffer from any perversity. In order to prove the case of claimants, to show that if he had died on account of heart attack, medibal evidence by way of postmortem report was produced as Ex.A2. Further eye witness, who has witnessed the incident, cleaner of lorry has been examined as A.W.3. Considering these two crucial evidences, the Tribunal has clearly rendered finding that the cause of death was due to heart attack and the same in turn was due to stress and strain in his work. As . there is a clear finding on aforesaid aspect backed by cogent evidence, this Court cannot come to any other conclusion rather than affirming said findings of fact. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that present appeal really does not raise any substantial question of law, inasmuch as the findings recorded by the Tribunal Mere reconsideration or do not suffer from any perversity. 17 CGR, J CMA No. 16 of 2024 re-examination of evidence on record would not raise any substantial question of law. As this Court has qome to conclusion that the findings recorded by Court of Commissioner really do not suffer from manifest illegality or tainted to be perverse and keeping I in view the judgments referred to above, facts of present case ‘ really would not raise any substantial question of law as such. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and stands dismissed. Keeping in view of dismissal of present appeal, the respondents/claimants are at liberty to withdraw the balance 18. amount. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending consideration. if any, in this case shall stand closed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, Assistant Employees Compensation and Commissioner of Labour, Guntur, Guntur District (with records) . Amancharla Satish Babu, Advocate [OPUC] Katakamsetty, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh at 1. The Commissioner for 2. OneCCto Sri 3. One CC to Sri. Uma Maheswar 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, Amaravathi 5. Two CD Copies Stu HIGH COURT DATED:02/09/2025 JUDGMENT CMA NO. 16 OF 2024 ar 15 SEP 2025 9 ^ Current Section DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS