New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Sushila Devi & Ors

order read as under:

"Hence, I hold that the applicants are not entitled to death compensation and they are entitled for injury compensation. But as the case-Pratap Narain"s-workman"s entitlement was crystallized the day of accident and his compensation has become the property of the estate after his demise. Hence, the LRs of the workman are entitled to compensation as per law."

¶19In Divisional Personal Officer , Western Rly. & Anr. Vs. Ashiya Begam, 1995 ACJ 435, it is observed:

"It is not necessary that there should be a 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 dependents 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 to 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".

¶20In another case, Kalavati Sakharam Ingular Vs. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd; (1993)III LLJ 768 (Bom) it was observed;

"Death need not be a direct result of the injury. Even if it has contributed to accelerate the death, it is enough for the case to fall within Section 3 of the Act."

¶21Since deceased sustained injuries in an accident during course of his employment, the Commissioner rightly awarded compensation only for injuries to his legal heirs. Thus, there is no infirmity or ambiguity in the impugned order.

¶22Present appeal therefore is not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed.

¶23Pending application stand disposed of.

¶24Parties shall bear their own costs.

¶25Trial court record be sent back.

15TH September, 2009

V.B.GUPTA, J. bhatti

HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI FAO No.370 of 2008 & CM No. 15900 of 2008 % Judgment reserved on: 27TH August, 2009 Judgment delivered on: 15TH September,2009 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through its Divisional Manager, DO 323500, 2/2A, Universal Building, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. ….Appellant Through: Mr. S .L. Gupta, Adv. Versus (1) Smt. Sushila Widow of Late Subhash Chander Sharma (2) Master Sachin S/o Late Subhash Chander Sharma. (3) Master Rahul S/o Late Subhash Chander Sharma. Respondents no. 2 & 3 minors represented Through their Mother (natural Guardian) Respondent no.1 All respondents no.1 to 3 R/o Village Dipalpur, Teshil & District Sonipat, Haryana. (4) Pushplata Dixit W/o Sh. G. S., Dixit, House No. C-144, Gali No. 6, Dashrathpuri, Palam Road, New Delhi-45 . ….Respondents. Through: Ms .Pratima Nain Chauhan, Adv. for respondents no.1 to 3. None for respondent no.4. 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. New India Assurance Company, the appellant has filed present appeal under Section 30 of Workmen"s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short as "Act") against order dated 13th August, 2008, passed by Commissioner Workmen Compensation (for short as "Commissioner"), vide which claim filed by respondents no. 1 to 3, legal heirs of deceased, Subhash Chander Sharma, was allowed and they were awarded a compensation of Rs.4,28,376/-. 2. Brief facts are that, deceased-Subhash Chander Sharma was employed as driver on the vehicle of respondent no. 4. On 9th September, 2003, while on duty, deceased was going from Peera Garhi to Palam Gaon. On way, there was some defect in the vehicle and deceased was trying to lookout it. All of sudden, another vehicle hit him from behind, with the result he sustained grievous injuries on his body. Due to impact, his chest and backbone was fractured. He was rushed to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and thereafter remained in other hospitals. FIR was registered on 10th September, 2003 and deceased died on 17th July, 2005. 3. Appellant in its reply took the plea that, deceased did not died of alleged accidental injuries. There is no nexus between accident and cause of death. None of the medical record provided by claimants suggest patient died due to accidental injuries. That is why they did not file postmortem report of deceased, which would have conclusively established as to for what reason death has taken place; whether it was due to accidental injuries or some other disease that deceased was already suffering. 4. Respondent no. 4, in written statement took the plea, that accident took place on 9th September, 2003 while, deceased died in 2006 i.e. after lapse of about four years. Thus, there is no nexus between incident and death of deceased. 5. Other plea is that, it is a Motor Accident Case and accident took due to rash and negligent driving of driver. Claimants concealed material facts from the Court, since they had already filed a case before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (for short as "Tribunal"). 6. Learned counsel for appellant argued that compensation awarded by Commissioner for injuries is illegal and unjustified in absence of proof of nexus between death of deceased and accidental injuries. 7. It is also contended that no compensation is payable as death has been caused due to cancer which was diagnosed on 4th October, 2004 by Doctor who was treating the deceased and not due to injuries sustained in accident. This petition is also not maintainable as petition for same cause has already been dismissed by Tribunal. 8. Lastly, it is contended that Commissioner wrongly granted compensation for disability in absence of any disability certificate. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimants contended that claim petition filed before Tribunal was not persued. Accordingly, present petition is maintainable.