Rashida Haroon Kupurade vs Div. Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

RASHIDA HAROON KUPURADE ... Appellant(s)

Versus

DIV. MANAGER,ORIENTAL INS. CO.LTD. & ORS ... Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Despite notice having been served on the respondent

Nos. 2 to 5, none of them have chosen to appear to oppose the

appeal, when it is taken up for consideration. Learned

counsel has, however, entered appearance on behalf of the

respondent No.1/insurance company.

4. The appeal is directed against an order passed by

the Karnataka High Court in Misc.First Appeal No.3340 of

2004, under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act,

1923, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for setting

aside the order dated 31st December, 2003, passed by the 2

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-I,

Belgaum, in Case No.WCA/FSR/1/03. By the said judgment, the

appeal of the insurance company challenging the compensation

awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was

partly allowed, upon the finding that since the deceased

workman had died of natural causes, namely, a heart attack,

the insurance company could not be fastened with the

liability of making payment of the said award since there was

no nexus between the death of the workman and the accident,

which had occurred about six months prior to his death.

However, while disposing of the appeal, the High Court

observed that at best, the relationship of employer and

employee as between the deceased and the insured not being in

dispute and the death having occurred during and in the

course of employment, liability could be fastened on the

employer and not the insurance company. Leave was,

therefore, given to the claimants to recover the compensation

amount from the owner of the vehicle. This appeal has been

filed by the owner of the vehicle against the said

observations and directions given by the High Court.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of the

appellant/owner of the vehicle that the provisions of Section

3 of the Act had been wrongly interpreted by the High Court 3

in observing that the liability for the death of the workman,

even if it had no connection with the accident in question,

was with the owner of the vehicle. It has been submitted by

Mr. Hegde that Section 3, which sets out the employer's

liability for compensation indicates in Sub-Section (1) that

if personal injuries are caused to a workman by accident

arising out of and in the course of his employment, his

employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance

with the provisions of Chapter II, which deals with workmen's

compensation. Certain exceptions have been carved out in

the proviso to the effect that there had to be some link

between the accident and the death of the employee in order

to attract the provisions of Section 3 as far as the owner

of the vehicle is concerned.

6. On behalf of the respondent/insurance company, it

has been sought to be reiterated that since there was no

nexus between the accident and the death of the employee, the

High Court had correctly held that the liability of making

payment under the Award was not with the insurance company.

7. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of

the respective parties, we are inclined to agree with the

submissions made on behalf of the appellant that the High

Court has committed an error in holding that notwithstanding 4

the fact that there was no connection with the accident and

the death of the workman, the owner of the vehicle in

question was still liable to pay compensation under the

provisions of the Act.

8. In order to better appreciate the submissions made

on behalf of the parties, Section 3(1) of the above Act is

extracted hereinbelow:-

"3.Employer's liability for compensation.-(1)....If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:..............."

9. It will be clear from the wording of the above

Section that compensation would be payable only if the injury

is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the

course of his employment. There has to be an accident in

order to attract the provisions of Section 3 and such

accident must have occurred in the course of the workman's

employment. As indicated hereinabove, in the instant case,

there is no nexus between the accident and the death of the

workman since the accident had occurred six months prior to

his death.

10. In such circumstances, we are unable to sustain the 5

order of the High Court and we have no option but to set

aside the same as far as the observations relating to the

appellant herein are concerned.

11. The appeal, therefore, succeeds. The observations

made in the impugned judgment regarding the liability of the

appellant herein to make payment in respect of the Award

passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation are set

aside. The other parts of the judgment are upheld. The

appeal is allowed.

12. There will be no orders as to costs.

13. This order will not prevent the heirs of the

deceased workman from taking recourse to any other legal

remedy, if available to them.

...................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

...................J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

New Delhi, February 08, 2010.