Delhi Sweet House v. Darshana Rani & Ors

order dated 12th November, 2008, appellant has already deposited the entire amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 2,11,000/- before the Commissioner. Out of this amount, except for an amount of Rs. 75,000/-, the balance has since been released to the claimants.

¶22Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, it is directed that there shall be no recovery from the respondents/claimants of any amount paid, though claimants are not entitled to any compensation.

¶23Balance amount of Rs.75,000/- lying deposited before the Commissioner, shall be paid to the appellant, after expiry of period of appeal.

¶24Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶25No order as to costs.

¶26Trial court record be sent back.

17th September, 2009

V.B.GUPTA, J. bhatti

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI FAO No.125/ 2004 % Judgment reserved on: 21ST August, 2009 Judgment delivered on: 17th September, 2009 Delhi Sweet House, Shop No. 1, Bhagat Sing Marg, New Delhi ….Appellant Through: Mr. S. C. Singhal, Adv. Versus (1) Smt. Darshana Rani Wd/o Late Sh. Kamal Dev Sharma (2) Master Anil Sharma (3) Master Virender Sharma (through Smt. Darshana Rani, his next friend being mother and natural guardian) Both sons of Late Kamal Dev Sharma All R/o 121-B, Rani Garden, Shastri Nagar, Near Geeta Colony, Delhi-110 031 ….Respondents. Through: Nemo Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. Appellant by way of present appeal has challenged order dated 23rd January, 2004, passed by Commissioner Workmen"s Compensation (Short as Commissioner). Vide impugned order, respondents were awarded compensation of Rs. 1,22,472/- (one lakh, twenty two thousand and four hundred seventy two only), along with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum, from date of accident, till its payment. This compensation was awarded on account of death of deceased Kamal Dev Sharma, husband of respondent no. 1 and father of respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. Brief facts are, that deceased was working as Chief Halwai with appellant, for more than twenty five years. Appellant, besides having shop in Gole Market, New Delhi was also having work shop in Noida(U. P). On 6th March, 1996, deceased was performing his duty i.e. manufacturing sweets at the workshop and while preparing sweets on Sigri (Anghiti), due to heat of fire and manual labour, as well as unhygienic working conditions, received stringent heart attack. He was immediately removed to Kailash Hospital in Noida. On 12th March, 1996 he died due to heart attack, which he received during the course of employment. 3. In written statement, appellant stated that there was no relationship of master and servant between deceased and appellant, on the date of incident. Appellant is running a Halwai shop at Gole Market, New Delhi but kitchen of that shop was discontinued due to objections raised by NDMC. Deceased was employed there from 1991 onwards and left the employment in September, 1995. All his accounts were cleared and settled and relationship of master and servant, between the parties came to an end. 4. The claim petition is not maintainable as deceased died due to heart attack, which ailment is not attributable to the employment of deceased. Heart attack is such a problem which cannot be attributed to or is a direct result of employment. It can be suffered by any one. Only those case are covered under Workman"s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short as Act), where ailment suffered by an employee is directly attributable to the job performed by employee. Heart attack can never be on account of heat of fire or on account of manual labour or on account of unhygienic conditions. Present appeal thus is not maintainable. 5. On 21st August, 2009, matter was listed for hearing. Only counsel for appellant appeared, while none appeared for respondents. This matter was shown continuously on board from 10th August, 2009 till 21st August, 2009. During this period, none appeared for respondents. Hence, there was no option but to proceed with the case. Accordingly, arguments advanced by learned counsel for appellant have been heard. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that impugned order is wholly erroneous and without jurisdiction. Section 3 of the Act, provides that no compensation shall be payable to workman in respect of any disease, unless the disease is directly attributed to a specific injury by accident, arising "out of and in the course of employment". Certainly, heart attack suffered by deceased, cannot be attributed to any specific injury by accident, as admittedly no such incident occurre