- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1896 MFA No. 21264 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.21264 OF 2013 (WC) BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AT MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SRI. S.M. DHARMANANAD RAO. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MUMTAJBEGUM IMTIYAZ THASILDAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. SHAHIDHUSSAIN IMTIYAZ THASILDAR, AGED ABOUT 09 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. SHAMIRAHAMMED IMTIYAZ THASILDAR, AGED ABOUT 07 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, (SINCE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1) 4. EMAMSAB RAJASAB THASILDAR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: COOLI, 5. SMT. JAINULLABEGUM IMTIYAZ THASILDAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1896 MFA No. 21264 of 2013 ALL ARE RESIDENT OF MARUTI NAGAR, DANDELI, (U.K) NOW RESIDING AT TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6. APPASAHEB KALLAPPA CHOWGALA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SANTOSH NIVAS, MARUTI NAGAR, DANDELI, TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: KARWAR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GEETHA K.M. @ PAWAR, ADV. FOR R1, R4 AND R5; (R2 AND R3 ARE MINOR’S REPRESENTED BY R1); SRI ANAND R.KOLLI, ADV. FOR R6) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WC ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 09-01-2013 PASSED IN BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND WORKMENS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, SUB-DIVISION-I, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI IN WCC/SR- 132/2011 AS AGAINS THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1896 MFA No. 21264 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 09.01.2013, passed in MVC No.132/2011, on the file of Labour Officer and Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Sub-Division-1, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commissioner’), questioning the award of compensation by the learned Commissioner on the reason that death of the deceased is not out of and in the course of employment but the deceased has suffered from heart attack and died. 2. Heard the arguments and perused the material placed before the Court. 3. It is the case of the claimant that the deceased was working as cleaner in the truck under the employment of respondent No.6. On 05.06.2011 after loading waste papers in the truck and travelling from Mumbai to Dandeli, at that time, the deceased had lost consciousness. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1896 MFA No. 21264 of 2013 Later on, the deceased declared as dead. Therefore, under these circumstances it is argued that the death of the deceased is not even occurred due to heart attack, but he lost consciousness. Therefore, the exact reason of death is not known and such death cannot be considered as out of and in the course of employment. Therefore, questioned the judgment and award on this ground. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SHAKUNTALA CHANDRAKANT SHRESHTI Vs. PRABHAKAR MARUTI GARVALI & ANOTHER1(SHAKUNTALA CASE). 5. It is not in dispute that the deceased was working as a cleaner in the truck bearing registration No.KA- 30/2494 under the employment of respondent No.6 and after loading waste papers in the truck at Mumbai and while travelling to Dandeli for unloading waste papers, during the transit, when the truck came to the place of 1 AIR 2007 SCC 248 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1896 MFA No. 21264 of 2013 Balewadi near Pune, the deceased has lost consciousness and later after few moments, he is declared as dead. Therefore, under these circumstances, the death of the deceased is considered as occurred out of and in the course of employment. 6. This case is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of the DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, GULBARGA Vs. SANGAMMA AND OTHERS2, which reads as under: “8. Therefore, if a workman suffers a personal injury unexpectedly or suddenly and such personal injury suffered by the workman can be attributed to the work undertaken by the workman or has some connection to the nature of the duties discharged by a workman, such an injury suffered can be treated as a result of the accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. In the instant case, the evidence on record shows that the workman was working at Chittapur depot of the appellant and he had boarded the bus in the early hours of the day to carry out his duties as conductor. It is on record that after the bus proceeded around 40 kilometers, the workman developed chest pain and when the same was informed to the driver of the bus, the driver 2 ILR 2005 KAR 20 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1896 MFA No. 21264 of 2013 stopped the bus at Naladurg Bus stand and admitted the workman to Ashwini Hospital. Among several causes for chest pain, one of the causes is strain and stress of work. Under these circumstances, the nature of work one undertakes, whether it be carrying a load on head, or driving a vehicle or working as a conductor or carrying out more strenuous work, where physical exercise is involved, have strain and stress of the work on the individual. Further, for development of chest pain or heart attack, physical exercise or physical strain alone is not the cause; and even the mental strain also could be a cause for chest pain or advancing the heart attack. Therefore even assuming that the workman had the block of the arteries of his heart, the free-flow of blood to the heart could be affected on account of the strain of work. Therefore, since admittedly, the workman at the time when he developed chest pain was conducting the bus as its conductor, it is reasonable to infer that he died on account of personal injury suffered by him in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. We would also like to point out that taking a view, different from the one we have expressed above, would be defeating the very object of the legislation. As noticed by us earlier, the Act is a beneficial legislation intended to give some security to the workman. We are of the considered view that the provisions of the Act is in the nature of a ‘Mini Insurance Scheme’ to the workman. Therefore, the liability of the employer under the Act is conceptually quite different from the liability under tort. Therefore, the interpretation to the provisions of the Act calls for a broad and liberal construction, lest its evident object is defeated. It is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1896 MFA No. 21264 of 2013 necessary to point out that while death is a natural event of life, the cause like heart attack or any other ailment cannot be considered as natural event that would take place, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant. The strain of the work may be mental or physical; depending upon the nature of the work one takes up and the physical and mental condition of an individual, a person I may suffer heart- attack. Heart-attack suffered, sometimes, if immediate and proper medical care is provided, may save the life of the patient. In this case the workman was on duty and was admitted to a mofisil hospital. It is not the case of the appellant that the best medical treatment was made available to the workman when he complained of chest- pain.” 7. Further, this Court in MFA No.3514/2013 C/w MFA No.3339/2013 dated 26.07.2023 has held as under: “10. In a very same and similar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court in the case of the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shankaramma and others reported in 2022 SCC Online KAR 1528, has held that the death of driver of an insured vehicle in non-usage of vehicle at the time of his death due to heart attack, it cannot absolve liability of the Insurance Company.” - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1896 MFA No. 21264 of 2013 8. Therefore, the judgment and award placed by the appellant in SHAKUNTALA case is distinguishable from this case. Hence, it is not applicable in the present case. 9. Therefore, the appeal is found to be devoid of merits. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 10. The amount in deposit made by the appellant- Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65