- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6606 MFA No. 24307 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24307 OF 2012 (WC) BETWEEN THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD, BELLARY. REPTD. BY ASSISTANT MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SMT. RATNAMALA G. H, ADV. FOR SRI. B. M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. JYOTEMMA W/O. LATE G. VIRUPAKSHI, AGE 33 YRS, OCC: NIL. 2. SANGEETA D/O. LATE G. VIRUPAKSHI, AGE 9 YRS, OCC: STUDENT. 3. SAVITA D/O. LATE G. VIRUPAKSHI, AGE 7 YRS, OCC: STUDENT, ALL ARE R/O. VADDU VILLAGE, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6606 MFA No. 24307 of 2012 TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY. (SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS REP. BY RESPONDENT NO.1). 4. SRI. HARI, AGE MAJOR, OCC: CONTRACTOR, DELTA ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES, A 2/17, VIJAY VITTHAL NAGAR, JVSL COMPOUND, R/O. TORANGALLU VILLAGE, TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY. 5. MANAGING DIRECTOR, JINDAL VIJAY NAGAR STEEL LTD., (JVSL), R/O. TORANGALLU VILLAGE, TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. M. SHEELVANT, ADV. FOR R5; NOTICE TO R1 & R4 SERVED; R2 & R3 ARE MINORS, REP. BY R1) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE WORKMAN COMPENSATION AND COMMISSIONER, DN, II BELLARY IN W.C 173/2007, DATED 23.03.2012 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 04.03.2025 FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6606 MFA No. 24307 of 2012 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. This appeal is filed by respondent No.3-Insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 23.03.2012 in W.C.No.173/2007 passed by the Workman Compensation Commissioner and Labour Commissioner Division-II, Bellary (for short, ‘the Labour Commissioner’). 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Labour Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 3. Deceased Virupakshi, who was father of claimant Nos.2 and 3 and husband of claimant No.1, was working under the respondent No.1-Sri Hari Contractor of Delta Engineering Industries as an employee for respondent No.2-Jindal Company. On 27.02.2006 around 10.45 am, when Virupakshi was doing welding work in the factory premises and also doing cutting of heavy iron rods. At that time concerned person unloading scrap and waste materials from a tipper lorry. All of a sudden scrap and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6606 MFA No. 24307 of 2012 metal materials of tipper lorry fell on the ground leading to lot of noise. The said Virupakshi thought that they were falling upon him and due to said shock and stress, he had a severe heart attack and died. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Toranagallu, wherein he was declared as brought dead. Thereafter, post-mortem was conducted in Primary Health Centre, Toranagallu. A report was given to Toranagallu police station and on that basis UDR No.6/2006174(c) was registered. 4. It is the further contention of the claimants that deceased Virupakshi was aged about 35 years at the time of the incident. Claimants being wife and children were depending upon the earnings of the deceased. He was the only breadwinner of the family. With these reasons they prayed to award compensation. 5. Respondent No.1 denied contents of the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against it. Respondent No.2 also denied existence of any employer and employee relationship between deceased - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6606 MFA No. 24307 of 2012 and respondent No.2. Hence it is not liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.3 in its written statement admitted that respondent No.2 obtained policy of insurance on its labourers. It denied other averments stated in the claim petition and it also stated that its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of policy of insurance. With these reasons prayed to reject the claim petition. 6. The Labour Commissioner framed necessary points for determination and recorded the evidence of both the parties. 7. Claimants examined claimant No.1 as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. Respondent No.2 examined RW1 and marked Ex.R1. 8. Learned Labour Commissioner heard the arguments and appreciating the evidence available on record, allowed the petition and awarded compensation of Rs.3,94,120/- and directed respondent No.3 to pay the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6606 MFA No. 24307 of 2012 said amount of compensation. Same is challenged in the present appeal by the insurer-respondent No.3. 9. This appeal was admitted to consider following substantive questions of law. 1. Whether the Labour Commissioner was justified in holding that death was occurred during the course of employment without appreciating evidence and documents on record? 2. Whether the Labour Commissioner is justified in settling its liability on respondent No.3 when the insurance company collected premium from the employer on the basis of wages paid to each employee, and restricting its liability to that extent? 3. Whether findings of the Labour Commissioner, is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and interference by this Court is required? 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. He contends that Virupakshi died due to heart failure and massive heart attack. It has no connection with the work he was doing at the time of accident. A story was built up by the claimants that when he was doing his work at that time some persons were - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6606 MFA No. 24307 of 2012 unloading a tipper containing scrap and waste articles. The deceased suddenly heard the sound of unloading and thought that the said scrap materials were falling on his head and due to the said fear, he had a massive heart attack and died. These facts clearly indicate that there is no connection between alleged employment and death of deceased, therefore it cannot be considered as the accidental death occurred during the course of his employment. The Labour Commissioner did not consider these facts. 11. The learned counsel for appellant further vehemently contended that respondent No. 2 paid Rs.48.65 as commission to cover the risk of each employee of having salary of Rs.2,000/- per month but the Tribunal considered that income of the deceased was Rs.4,000/- per month. In that event, the Commissioner ought to have directed the remaining amount of compensation to be paid by the respondent No.2, instead of that, saddled entire liability on the insurer, which is - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6606 MFA No. 24307 of 2012 erroneous. Therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order and it does not call for interference. 12. This Court anxiously considered materials on record. It is not in dispute that incident had taken place in the premises of respondent No.2. It is also not in dispute that at the time of incident, deceased was discharging his duty. It is stated in the petition that when he was discharging his official duty, at the instructions of respondent No.2, someone was unloading waste and scrap metal articles from a tipper lorry that lead to sudden intense sound, hearing the said sound, the deceased felt that the said iron articles are falling on him and due to the said fear and shock, he had a massive heart attack and died. The incident had taken place within the factory premises of respondent No. 2. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not examine any witnesses who had seen the unloading of the said scrap materials from the tipper lorry. At least to rebut the evidence of PW1, they could have examined employees working in the said premises. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6606 MFA No. 24307 of 2012 13. Claimants are widow and minor children of the deceased. They were not personally present in the premises at the time of incident. They must have heard the information from someone else known to them about the manner in which the incident had taken place. Respondent No.2 is a competent person to bring the truth before the Court regarding the manner in which the incident had occurred. He has not examined witnesses. Therefore, there is no proper rebuttal evidence to disbelieve the contentions of the claimants. Such a possibilities cannot be ruled out. 14. The learned Labour Commissioner in the impugned order has noted that deceased was lifting a heavy iron rod for gas cutting and during that process persons concerned were unloading the waste particles and scrap metal from the tipper lorry nearer to the site place. When he suddenly heard the sound of unloading of the metal articles, he thought that they were falling on his head. The shock may likely to cause deaths. Therefore, it - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6606 MFA No. 24307 of 2012 cannot be considered that his death was natural and not accidental. The reasons assigned by Commissioner do not call for interference. 15. In the case of Divisional Personal Officer, Western Railways, Jaipur & Another Vs.Ashiya Begam reported in RLW 1993(2) RAJ.490, at paragraph 9 it is held as under: “(9) On the basis of the decisions which have been seen above, it is obvious that the facts of the present case can be said to be the similar to the cases to those who were earlier suffering from disease and where death was accelerated on account of stress and strain of the working condition; it is not necessary that there should be direct connection between the cause of death and the nature of duties. Even if a casual connection between the two can be shown then the dependants of the deceased would be entitled to claim compensation from the employer. In the matters like the present one it is not for the courts to look into the minute details of the pleadings and the evidence which has been produced in the court but it is to be seen whether on a broad analysis of the material before the court it can be said that the accident which resulted in any injury was in the course of employment or out of the employment.” 16. In the case of The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Siddappa and Others - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6606 MFA No. 24307 of 2012 reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3119. The Coordinate Bench of this Court held as under: “13. The Act undoubtedly is a welfare legislation aimed to soothe the agony of a workman or his dependants who become incapacitated or dead on account of the injuries sustained by them during the course of the employment. The social legislation to care for his welfare finds emphatic expression on this welfare legislation. Therefore, an interpretation which would advance that salutary object and intendment has to be adopted. A strict and ritualistic adherence to the procedural formalities of a trial is neither necessary nor desirable in deciding the question of entitlement of the injured employees for compensation. A more realistic and less formal approach is called for from authorities functioning under this beneficial enactment. The Courts are not to defeat the very purpose of the enactment by adopting a totally negative approach to the claim which the claimants advanced before them. Many of the provisions of the statute point out to the need for absence of rigidity.” 17. Similarly, in the case of Param Pal Singh Vs.National Insurance Co.Ltd. and another reported in 2013 ACJ 526, at paragraph 28 it held as follows: “28. Having regard to the evidence placed on record there was no scope to hold that the deceased was simply traveling in the vehicle and that there was no obligation for him to undertake the work of driving. On the other hand, the evidence as stood established proved the fact that the deceased was actually driving the truck and that in the course of such driving activity as he felt uncomfortable he safely parked the vehicle on the side of - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6606 MFA No. 24307 of 2012 the road near a hotel soon whereafter he breathed his last. In such circumstances, we are convinced that the conclusion of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation that the death of the deceased was in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent No.2 was perfectly justified and the conclusion to the contrary reached by the learned Judge of the High Court in the order impugned in this appeal deserves to be set aside. The appeal stands allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation shall stand restored and there shall be no order as to costs.” 18. In the case of The Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, Gulbarga Vs. Sangamma and Others reported in ILR 2005 KAR 20. The Division Bench of this Court held 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 le 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 carryout his duties a Conductor. It is on record that after the bus proceeded around kilometers, the workman developed chest pain and when the same was informed to the driver of the bus, the driver stopped the be at Naladurg Bus stand and - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6606 MFA No. 24307 of 2012 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 mote 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 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 account of the strain of work. Therefore, since admittedly. workman at the time when he developed chest pain was conducting the bus as its conductor, it is reasonable to infer that he died at account of personal injury suffered by him in an accident a out of and in the course of his employment. We would also he 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 workmen. 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 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 may suffer heart attack. Heart attack suffered, sometimes, if immediate and proper medical care is provided, may save the life of - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6606 MFA No. 24307 of 2012 the patient. In this case the workman was on duty and was admitted to an moffisil 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.” 19. In all the above said decisions, in different context and different facts and circumstances, it is held by the High Court of Rajasthan, Hon’ble Apex Court and Division Bench of this Court that in such event that could be considered as accidental death caused during the course of employment. 20. As discussed in the above paragraphs, in this case also during the course of employment, due to fear of falling of the metal articles on him, deceased was scared and that resulted in heart attack. Therefore, undoubtedly as held by the Labour Commissioner, the death of Virupakhi caused due to the accident occurred during the course of employment. Accordingly, the substantial question No.1 is answered in the affirmative. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6606 MFA No. 24307 of 2012 21. Substantial question No.2 - The main contention of the insurer that respondent No.2-Company took policy of insurance on its employees and according to the said policy risk of 15 employees having wages of Rs.1,000/- per month is covered. In this case that Labour Commissioner decided the wages of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month; therefore proportion amount compensation shall be paid by the employer. The said contention is not acceptable. In the cross-examination, RW1 has stated that respondent No.3 had not taken such defence that they collected premium for each employee calculating his salary as Rs.2,000/- per month. In the further cross- examination, he has stated that in Ex.R1, it is mentioned that the employees who were drawing salary of less than Rs.4,000/- per month there risk was covered under the policy and premium was collected. Looking to the contents of Ex.R1, it specifically says that “premium details for employees with wages less than Rs.4,000/- per month“ - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6606 MFA No. 24307 of 2012 and it covers the risk of 15 employees and accordingly premium of Rs.8,757/- was collected. Having collected the premium for 15 employees, who were drawing salary up to Rs.4,000/- per month insurance policy was issued. Now it cannot turn around and say that the policy is covered to an employee who was drawing salary of Rs.1,000/- or Rs.2,000/- per month as stated in his evidence. Such a contention is not acceptable. 22. The Tribunal has taken income as Rs.4,000/- per month that is as per the terms of the policy of insurance and hence the entire amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall be payable by the appellant. 23. The Labour Commissioner has not committed any error in accepting the same. Therefore, the finding of the Labour Commissioner's impugned order is justifiable and proper. In view of the said reasons, the 2nd substantial question of law framed is answered against the Insurance Company. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6606 MFA No. 24307 of 2012 24. For the aforesaid discussions following orders are passed: ORDER i. Appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgment and award passed by the Labour Commissioner dated 23.03.2012 in W.C.No.173/2007 is confirmed. iii. Send back the TCR along with copy of this order to the Labour Commissioner. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE KGK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55