JYOTHI ADEMMA versus PLANT ENGINEER, NELLORE AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 400 · Decided: 11-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
JYOTHI ADEMMA 
v. 
PLANT ENGINEER, NELLORE AND ANR. 
JULY 11, 2006 
[ARJJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, 11.] 
Labour Laws: 
Workmen Compensation Act, 1923; Section 3: 
Workman died at workplace due to heart al/ack-Compensation-
Awarded by Commissioner-Challenge to-Allowed by High Court holding 
that death of the workman not caused by any accident arising out of and in 
the course of employment-On appeal, Held: For seeking compensation, the 
D petitioner requires to establish some causal connection between the death of 
the workman and his employment-'f the employment is a contriblllory cause/ 
accelerated the death, it can be said that death arose out of the employment 
and the employer would be liable-In the instant case, doctor's report confirms 
that there is no scope for any stress or strain in performing duties by the 
workman-Hence, the findings recorded by the High Court does not suffer 
E from any infirmi~y-However, since the amount of compensation already paid 
to the wife of the deceased, the amount so paid shall not be recovered though 
she is not entitled to any compensation. 
Words and Phrases: 
F 
'Accident '-Meaning of in the context of Workmen Compensation Act. 
The appellant's husband was working in a Thermal Station. He died 
at the work place. Appellant filed an application before the Commissioner 
seeking compensation on the ground that the death was caused due to 
stress and strain of the working conditions, and therefore, attributable to 
G an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The 
Commissioner made an award in favour of the appellant. The respondents 
filed an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act before 
the High Court. The High Court observed that the workman died due to 
heart attack at the work place; that the nature of the job which the 
H 
400 
JYOTHI ADEMMA v. PLANT ENGINEER. NELLORE 
40] 
deceased workman was doing could not have caused any stress and strain A 
and, therefore, the death due to heart attack can not be said to have been 
caused by any accident arising out of !1nd in the course of his employment. 
Hence the present appeal. 
The appellant contended that whenever a person dies as a result of 
heart attack at the work place, it can be said that he died due to the stress B 
and strain of the working conditions; that the Commissioner was right in 
awarding the compensation as he had indicated reasons in support of his 
conclusion, therefore, the order of the Commissioner should be restored. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. In terms of Section 3(1) of the Workmen Compensation 
Act, it has to be established that there was some causal connection between 
the death of the workman and his employment. If the workman dies as a 
natural result of the disease which he was suffering or while suffering from 
c 
a particular disease he dies of that disease as a result of wear a11d tear, of D 
the employment no liability would be fixed upon the employer. But if the 
employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the death, or if the 
death was due not only to the disease but also the disease coupled with 
the employment, then it can be said that the death arose out of the 
employment and the employer would be liable. (403-G-H; 404-A] 
1.2. The expression "accident" means an untoward mishap which is 
not expected or designed. "Injury" means physiological injury. It was 
observed that the expression "accident" is used in the popular and 
ordinary sense of the word as denoting an unlooked for mishap or an 
untoward event which is not expected or designed. (404-B-C] 
Fenton v. Thorley & Co. Ltd., (1903) AC 448 and Trim Joint District, 
School Board of Management v. Kelly, (1914) A.C. 676, referred to. 
E 
F 
1.3. In the present case it has been brought on record that the 
deceased was suffering from chest disease and was previously being treated G 
for such disease. The High Court also noted that the job of the deceased 
was only to switch on or off and, therefore, the doctor had clearly opined 
that there was no scope for any stress or strain in his duties. In view of 
the factual findings recorded the High Court's judgment does not suffer 
from any infirmity. (404-DI 
H 
402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R . 
. A 
1.4. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, no recovery 
shall be made from the appellant of any amount paid, though she is not 
entitled lo any compensation. 1404-Fl 
CIVIL APPEL

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.