SHAKUNTALA CHANDRAKANT SHRESHTI versus PRABHAKAR MARUTI GARVALI AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 939 · Decided: 10-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

·~ 
SHAKUNT ALA CHANDRAKANT SHRESHTI 
v. 
PRABHAKAR MARUTI GARV ALI AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER I 0, 2006 
[S.B.SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Labour Law: 
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: Sections 3 & 30. 
Compensation-Arising out of accident in the course of employment-
Causal connection between injury and accident-Death of workman in a vehicle 
A 
B 
c 
due to sudden heart attack-Entitlement to compensation-The deceased was 
working as a cleaner in a truck-The deceased, while getting down from the 
vehicle, suffered a massive heart attack and died on the spot-But nothing had D 
bee~ brought on record to show that the heart attack was caused while doing 
any job-Mother of the deceased filed a claim petition alleging that the death 
had occurred while the deceased was performing his duties in the course of 
his employment-Petition was allowed by the Commissioner for Workmen's 
Compensation-But the High Court rejected the claim petition and held that 
the deceased had not died as a result of an accident during and in the course E 
of his employment-Correctness of-Held: There is a crucial link between the 
causal connections of employment with death-Such a link with evidence 
cannot be a matter of surmise or conjecture-Only because a death has taken 
place in course of employment will not amount to an accident-Death must 
arise out of accident-Only because a person dies of heart attack, the same F 
does not give rise to an automatic presumption that the same was by wcry of 
accident-Jn the instant case, there was no causal connection between the 
employment and the death-Hence, High Court rightly rejected the claim 
petition. 
Words & Phrases: 
"Arising out of and in the course of employment"-Meaning of-Jn the 
context of S. 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Aci, 1923. 
939 
G 
H 
A 
940 
SUPREME COTJRT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
The deceased was working as a cleaner in a truck. The vehicle was 
being used for bringing milk. The deceased-cleaner, while getting down 
from the said vehicle, got pain and sat on the ground and immediately 
the driver of the said vehicle took him to the hospital where he was 
declared dead. The deceased admittedly suffered a massive heart attack. 
B But nothing had been brought on record to show that the heart attack 
was caused while doing any job. The driver of the vehicle and the doctor 
who performed the postmortem examination were not examined. The 
postmortem report stated that the death was due to sudden heart attack. 
The mother of the deceased filed a claim petition under the 
C Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 alleging that the death had occurred 
while the deceased was performing his duties in the course of his 
employment. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation allowed 
the petition without recording a finning that the job involved stress or 
strain. In appeal, the High Court rejected the claim petition and held that 
the deceased had not died as a result of an accident during and in the 
D course of his employment. Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: l. In the claim petition, there was no allegation that (i) the 
E deceased met with his death by reason of any strain of works; and (ii) the 
appellant had no personal knowledge as regards the quantum of or nature 
of work required to be performed by the deceased; and (iii) as to how 
service strain during his services was caused. (947-C, DJ 
2. The deceased had admittedly suffered a massive heart attack. 
F Nothing has been brought on record to show that the heart attack was 
caused while doing any job. Even according to the employer, he at the 
relevant time was merely getting down from the vehicle. 1947-E) 
3. Sufferance of heart disease amongst young persons is not 
unknown. A disease of heart may remain undetected. A person may suffer 
G mild heart attack but he may not feel any pain. There must, thus, be some 
evidence that the employment contributed to the death of the deceased. It 
is required to be established that the death occurred during the course of 
employment. [947-F, G] 
H 
SHAKUNTALA CHANDRAKANT SHRESHTI "·PRABHAKAR MARUTI GARVALI 
94} 
Saurashtra Salt Mfg. Co. v. Bai Valu Raja Raja, AIR (1958) SC 881, A 
relied on. 
Regional Director, ES/ Corporation v. Francis De Costa, [199616 SCC 
I, referred to. 
Dover Navigation Co. Ltd v. /sabella Craig, (1940) AC 190 and Fenton B 
(Pauper) v. J. Thorley & Co. ltd, (1903) AC 443, referred to. 
4. The principles are: 
(a) There must be a causal conn

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