- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3275 MFA No. 200757 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200757 OF 2020 (ECA) BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEKRTC CENTRAL OFFICER, SARIGE SADAN, KALABURAGI (NOW REPRESENTED BY C.L.O CENTRAL OFFICE, KALABURAGI) …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND: MOHURUNISA BEGUM W/O LATE MAQDOOMSAB, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, C/O: SYED ASRAF ALI H.NO.5-993-145, MAHEBOOB NAGAR COLONY WARD NO.12, KALABURAGI - 04 …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF E.C ACT, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.03.2020 IN E.C.A.NO.41/2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION AT KALABURAGI AND TO REMAND THE MATTER FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION BY GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3275 MFA No. 200757 of 2020 THE APPELLANT TO CONTEST THEIR CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 02.03.2020 passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation (‘Commissioner’ for brevity), Kalaburagi, in ECA no.41/2018, this appeal is filed. 2. Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel submitted, appeal was by employer challenging finding of Commissioner that incident of death of workman due to heart attack was in course of or out of employment. It was submitted, an application under Employees Compensation Act (‘EC Act’ for brevity), was filed by respondent alleging that on 30.11.2016, her husband Maqdoomsab, employed as driver by NEKRTC and deputed to Humnabad depot, Bidar division, was on duty in NEKRTC bus plying on route 26/27/26 i.e. Humnabad to Bidar, Bidar to Hubballi and back to Humnabad. And at 22:15 hours, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3275 MFA No. 200757 of 2020 when bus was at Bus stand, Kalaburagi, he suffered severe chest pain and fell down on platform. He was immediately rushed to Ganga Multispeciality Hospital, Kalaburagi, where he was declared dead due to cardiac arrest. It was stated as on date of death, workman was 51 years of age and earning monthly salary of Rs.26,926/-. Alleging loss of dependency due to his untimely death, his wife filed claim. 3. It was submitted, on service of summons, NEKRTC appeared and filed objections admitting appointment of Maqdoomsab as driver and his deputation to Humnabad. It was however contended, he was not working sincerely, honestly and to full satisfaction of management. And that death due to cardiac arrest was of natural cause and not due to employment. Therefore, employer was not liable to pay compensation. 4. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed following: ISSUES 1. Whether petitioner proves that there was relationship between the deceased Maqdoomsab and respondent as employee and employer as on the date of accident? 2. Whether the petitioner proves that the deceased died in the accident arising out of and in the course of deceased employment on 30.11.2016? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so, how much and from whom? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3275 MFA No. 200757 of 2020 4. What order or award?” 5. Thereafter, claimant examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. Employer examined Depot Manager as RW.1 and got marked Attendance Book as Ex.R-1. 6. On consideration, Commissioner answered issues no.1 and 2 in affirmative, issue no.3 partly in affirmative and issue no.4 by allowing application and holding claimant entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,03,700/- with interest at 12% per annum from date of petition. Aggrieved, employer was in appeal. 7. It was submitted, there were several contradictions in self-serving statements of claimant with regard to incident in question disentitling claim under provisions of EC Act. It was contended, death due to heart attack would be of natural causes and there was no nexus between death and employment. Hence substantial question of law about finding that death occurred in course of and out of employment being perverse arose for consideration. 8. Claimant is served and unrepresented. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3275 MFA No. 200757 of 2020 9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and award and record. 10. From above, it is seen this appeal is by employer challenging finding of Commissioner about occurrence of death of workman in course of and out of employment. Sufferance of cardiac arrest by Maqdoomsab on 13.11.2016 at platform, Kalaburagi Bus Stand and he being taken to hospital for treatment, declared dead due to cardiac arrest on same day, are not in dispute. 11. Specific contention of employer is there was no nexus between death and employment. It is settled law that burden to establish said fact with specific pleading and evidence would be on claimant. In claim application, it is asserted that workman – Maqdoomsab was performing duty on route – 26/27/26 i.e. from Humnabad to Bidar, Bidar to Hubballi and return from Hubballi to Bidar and Bidar to Humnabad along with Sri Anilkumar – conductor, in bus no.F-865. It is further stated that at 22:15 hours, Maqdoomsab got log-sheet entered at Control Point in Kalaburagi Bus Stand, when he suffered severe chest pain and was taken to hospital. It was also stated, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3275 MFA No. 200757 of 2020 Depot Manager arranged another driver to operate route and complete schedule as mentioned in Log-sheet no.4403759. Said assertions were reiterated in deposition and copies of order passed by NEKRTC, Duty Certificate and Death Certificate were got marked as Exs.P1 to P3. 12. In cross-examination, it is elicited that workman left home at 5:00 a.m. to go to Hubballi from Bidar. Apart from above, suggestions about workman not doing any heavy duty, death due to natural cause, lack of nexus between death and employment and claimant not being entitled for compensation are made and denied. 13. On other hand objections filed by employer is one of general denial with Depot Manager examined as RW.1 and Attendance Book Extract marked as Ex.R1. 14. Issue whether death of workman due to heart attack can be held to be during course of and out of employment, has been subject matter in various decisions. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore and Another, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 513, observed, where deceased - workman an employee at Nellore Thermal Station, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3275 MFA No. 200757 of 2020 died due to heart attack at work spot, petitioner alleged that death was due to stress and strain linked with employment, while Employer opposed it on ground that death did not occur during course of and out of employment and it was for natural reasons. Apex Court was of view that mere occurrence of death during course of employment was not sufficient to hold employer liable to pay compensation, unless, it is established that there was some causal connection between death of workman and his employment. It denied claim in said case, as job of deceased was only to operate a switch - on and off, which could not be held causing stress or strain in his duties. 15. In Shankuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakara Maruti Garvali and Anr. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 668, a cleaner in a lorry suffering chest pain in transit and died. It was clarified, though deceased may have suffered heart attack while on job, same by itself would not support presumption that it was suffered due to strain and stress of job and it was necessary to establish that such circumstances as would cause stress and strain for heart attack, existed. Without such evidence, there would be no jurisdiction to award compensation. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3275 MFA No. 200757 of 2020 16. In Mallikarjuna G. Hiremath v. Branch Manager, OICL and Anr., reported in (2009) 13 SCC 405, death of a driver of a lorry had occurred when driver slipped and fell into a pond and drowned. It was held that such death would not be “arising out of and in course of employment”, as it lacked causal connection between employment and death. Referring to Jyothi Ademma’s case (supra) and ESI Corpn. v. Francis De Costa reported in (1996) 6 SCC 1, it has held that merely because death occurred during employment would not mean it was in course of employment. 17. In Poonam Devi & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2020) 4 SCC 55, while considering case of a driver drowning in Yamuna Canal, where he had gone to fetch water and to have bath while in transit, Hon’ble Supreme Court took judicial note of fact that incident had occurred in summer when due to heat, driver was under compulsion to take bath, stay fresh and alert not only to protect truck, but also himself for safe journey and held: “………. Every action of a driver of truck to ensure the safety of the truck belonging to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3275 MFA No. 200757 of 2020 the employer and to ensure his own safety by a safe journey for himself has to be considered as incidental to the employment by extension of the notional employment theory…….” 18. This Court in National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Smt.Renukamma and Ors. reported in 2019 (1) KLJ 458, referring to earlier decision in National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Zaheeda Banu and Ors. reported in ILR 2010 KAR 4321, have held driving as a stressful job and there cannot be presumption where driver dies during course of employment that it was not due to strain and stress of driving. Similar views are expressed in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt.Varija and Ors. reported in ILR 2011 KAR 3915 and MFA no.201567/2017 disposed of on 23.12.2020. Insurer is held liable even when death due to cardiac arrest was while workman was resting in course of employment. 19. Admittedly, workman suffered chest pain while he was on platform in Bus Stand and had got his log sheet entered. Therefore, there is material to establish that incident occurred in course of employment. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3275 MFA No. 200757 of 2020 20. Insofar as whether it was out of employment, it has to be noted that total driving distance on route 26/27/26 (i.e. from Humnabad to Bidar, Bidar to Hubballi and back) is about 1000 Kms., claimant stated that workman had left home at 5:00 a.m. on date of incident. He was at Kalaburagi Bus Stand at 22:15 hours (apparently on return journey having driven more than 800 Kms on that day). Same would sufficiently justify assertion about Cardiac arrest being caused due to stress and strain of driving. In light of above, finding of Commissioner about death being out of employment cannot be stated to be without basis or without reasons. Hence, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. 21. In view of above appeal is dismissed. Amount if any deposited before this Court be transmitted to tribunal for dispersal. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54