(PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the order dated 28.08.2002 passed in WC No.09/2001 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation I, Chennai.)
Challenging the award of compensation of Rs.1,92,140/-, Insurance Company has preferred this appeal denying its liability.
2.The deceased/workman sustained injuries in the accident in the course of his employment. On 19.11.1998, the deceased Muthumathi was driving lorry bearing Registration No.TN.07-Y-2115 and suddenly applied brakes to avoid hitting against a cyclist, as a result of which, the lorry went out of control and capsized, causing injuries to the said Muthumathi. The accident occurred during the course of and out of employment, while the said Muthumathi was engaged as a driver of the said lorry. Muthumathi was admitted to Government General Hospital, Chennai, after initial treatment at Government Hospital, Krishnagiri. After discharge from Government Hospital, Chennai on 14.05.1999, it was alleged he developed tetanus and died in his house on 23.07.1999. Alleging the death was due to injuries sustained during the course of employment, claimants filed Petition under Workmen's Compensation Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
3.Opposing the claim, Insurance Company has filed counter stating that the deceased workman sustained injuries in accident on 19.11.1998 and he died on 23.07.1999 and since no postmortem was conducted, it must be construed that death was not a result of the injury sustained. Since there was no casual connection between the injuries sustained on 19.11.1998 and resultant death on 23.07.1999, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.
4.Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Deputy Commissioner of Labour held that the deceased sustained injuries in the course of his employment and after treatment, he has developed 'Latent Tetanus' and he died as a sequel of the injuries sustained by him and the Labour Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.1,92,140/-.
5.Challenging the award, the learned Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company has submitted that in the absence of postmortem, Labour Commissioner was not right in holding that the death was due to injuries sustained in the accident. It was further submitted that absolutely there is no material to show that deceased had taken treatment and therefore, doubts must be entertained as to whether death was due to development of tetanus. It was further argued that in the absence of acceptable medical evidence, Labour Court was not right in holding that the deceased died of injuries arising out of accident.
6.Supporting the findings of the Labour Court Commissioner, the learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that even after discharge, the deceased continued his treatment and developed tetanus and the Deputy Commissioner rightly held that the death was due to injuries sustained by him in the course of employment. Laying emphasis upon the evidence of PW-2, the learned Counsel submitted that PW-2 Professor and Surgeon in Stanley Medical College, has attended the deceased and based upon evidence of PW-2, Tribunal rightly concluded that the death was due to injuries sustained in the course of employment. It was further submitted that even if claimant's cause is taken as injury, since there was amputation of lower limb, as per Schedule I Part II, percentage of disability would be 60% which in any event, be more than the compensation for death.
7.Deceased Muthumathi sustained injuries in the accident on 19.11.1998 when he was driving lorry. In her evidence, first claimant [AW-1] has deposed that deceased Muthumathi was admitted in Government Hospital, Krishnagiri on 19.11.1998 and after initial treatment, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Chennai on 22.11.1998 for further treatment. Deceased was discharged from Hospital on 14.05.1999 and the deceased died on 23.09.1999 at his residence. In her evidence, PW-1 has stated that even after discharge, the deceased had taken private treatment. While he was in the hospital, he was twice operated upon and only thereafter, discharged on 14.05.1999.
8.In his evidence, AW-2 Dr.Gopalan, Surgeon in Stanley Medical College Hospital has stated that he has examined the deceased one day prior to his death on 22.07.1999 and during his examination, he has found that the deceased had stiff jaw and the cell muscles of the body of the deceased was also found to be stiff. PW-2 further deposed that the deceased developed "Latent Tetanus" and probably due to this cause, the deceased died. Ex.A-2 is the Discharge Summary from which it is seen that left leg was partially amputated and deceased was advised to come for SSG after two weeks.
9.Concededly the deceased Muthumathi sustained injuries on the lateral aspect of left leg on 19.11.1998 while he was on duty in the course of his employment. He was also given treatment for septicemia. During cross examination AW-2 admitted that while deceased was being treated, he was administered Anti Tetanus Toxicide injection to prevent Tetanus at any later point of time. Based on the evidence of PW-2, the learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the deceased Muthumathi had been injected for anti-tetanus and therefore, it is improbable that the deceased would have developed tetanus. On that score, it was submitted that a doubt must be entertained as to whether Muthumathi's death was due to tetanus resulting from the injury sustained by him in the accident.
10.This doubt sought to be raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant does not merit acceptance. In his evidence AW-2 has categorically stated that while he examined the deceased on 22.07.1999, he found that the deceased had developed Latent Tetanus. It may be that anti-tetanus injection administered might have effect for more than a year. Since the deceased sustained crush injury over the entire left leg, tetanus attack cannot be ruled out. Contention of the appellant that there was no nexus between the injuries and the death of deceased is unsustainable. In the light of the evidence of PW-2 there is no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that tetanus infection brought about death must be directly attributed to the injury sustained by Muthumathi in the accident. Cause of death is not remote or unconnected one with the injury sustained by the deceased in the course of his employment. Needless to say that if cause of death is integrally connected with the injury sustained in the accident, cause of death must be attributed to the injury sustained in the accident.
11.It is futile to contend whether at all deceased died due to tetanus. In similar case in 1975 ACJ 215 [Madras] Govind Singh and ors. v. Kailasam and another, deceased sustained injury in the course of his employment. In that case arising under Motor Vehicles Act, the injured developed tetanus during treatment and he succumbed to the disease. Observing that autopsy is not indispensable to determine cause of death and holding that cause of death is not a remote or unconnected one with the injury sustained by the deceased, the Court has held:
"11. ... Having regard to the fact that the setting in of tetanus is a foreseeable and likely consequence of any bleeding injury and in the absence of evidence to show that any other supervening cause brought about the tetanus infection there is absolutely no possibility of Heera Bai's death being caused by novus actus interveniens."
The above observation is squarely applicable to the present case.
12.The learned Counsel for the Appellant has further argued that in the absence of any acceptable medical evidence, showing link between death and injuries, the deceased was not entitled to any compensation and at the most, he could claim compensation only for personal injury sustained by him and the claimants are not entitled to claim compensation for the death, which is unconnected with the injury sustained arising out of and in the course of employment. This contention has no force. As per Schedule I Part II, Sl.No.19, for amputation of leg, percentage of disability is 60%. Whereas percentage of disability for death is only 50%. Even if we accept the arguments of the appellant, the compensation amount to be awarded to Muthumathi towards personal injury would be more than the compensation awarded for death.
13.On the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2 and upon Exs.A-1 and A-2, Commissioner has given a finding that the death was integrally connected with the injury sustained in the accident arising in the course of employment and it is a finding of fact based on evidence. When the conclusion is based on appreciation of evidence, such factual finding cannot be interfered with. No question of law, much less substantial question of law is shown to be involved in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of merits and is bound to fail.
14.In the result, the order dated 28.08.2002 passed in W.C.No.09/2001 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation I, Chennai, is confirmed and this appeal is dismissed. No costs. It is stated that the claimants have withdrawn part of the amount. Claimants are entitled to withdraw the balance amount along with accrued interest.
Comments