Narayana Pillai, J.:— Pipe-repairing in the Railways is arduous. While engaged in that work on June 5, 1971, in the Southern Railway one Kumaran got exhausted and sat down with bead resting on hands. He was immediately removed to hospital where he was admitted for cerebral haemorrhage. He succumbed to it two days after, while under treatment there. His widow, who is the respondent here, was awarded Rs. 7,000/- as compensation by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. This appeal from that is by the Executive Engineer of the Railways under whom Kumaran worked.
2. The fact that Kumaran was working in the Railways on the relevant date is denied by the appellant. The deposition of the Inspector of Works who was examined as O.W 1 shows that there is a separate muster roll for Kumaran. That would have shown whether he was actually engaged in the work that day. That was not produced. A.W 2 is a co-worker and A.W 3 a shop-keeper in the neighbourhood.
3. Their evidence, relied upon by the Commissioner, and that rightly, shows that actually Kumaran was engaged in the work of repairing pipes in the Railways on June 5, 1971. It is clear that the accident occurred when he was on duty and so in the course of employment.
4. The only other matter in dispute is as to whether the accident arose out of the employment. Mrs. Kamlabai Chintaman Amrut v. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur*, Central Railway AIR. 1971 Bombay 200, a decision of the Bombay High Court, and the prior decisions referred to therein were relied upon by Mr. M.C Cherian, appearing for the appellant, in support of the position he took. The principles applicable to cases of the instant type are by now well-established. Compensation can be awarded only if the accident arose in the course of and out of the employment of the workman and those conditions refer to the time when the accident happened End the causal connection between the employment and the death. If the workman actually got ill in the course of and on account of the employment and he died as a result of it then there is no scope for a controversy at all. The employer is bound to give compensation. He is also bound to give compensation in cases where the workman had an illness already but the employment furnished a contributory cause to his death or if the employment caused aggravation of the illness and accelerated his death. If it was as a natural result of a disease which the workman already had that he died and his employment did not furnish a contributory cause to his death or if the employment had really nothing to do with the aggravation of his disease and acceleration of his death then it cannot be said that there was a causal connection between his employment and subsequent death. The decisions cited by Mr. Cberian do not lay down anything inconsistent with these principles.
5. In the present case it has come out from the evidence of Aws. 2 and 3 that the work in which Kumaran was engaged was really of a very strenuous nature. It has also come out that Kumaran's condition on June 5, 1971 on doing work was one of complete exhaustion. It was on seeing him in that condition he was removed to hospital. There cannot be any doubt that even if he had symptoms of the disease previously his work on June 5, 1971 suddenly and unexpectedly aggravated his illness and contributed its own share to the acceleration of his end Accident in the present case which resulted in Kumaran's death arose out of and in the course of employment.
6. No substantial question of law justifying interference in appeal under the first proviso to S. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act arises here.
7. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.
8. Dismissed.
Comments