1

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             CIVIL  APPEAL No.1638 OF  2010

                 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.7176  of 2006]     

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.