The application filed by the earlier known as Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 appellants before the Commissioner was allowed by him vide order dated 22.03.2007. Compensation of ₹3,26,140/- (Rupees three lakh twenty six thousand one hundred and forty) with interest @ 12% p.a. was awarded w.e.f. 15.09.2003 till the date of realization. (Para 1)
The deceased was assigned the duty of driving the abovesaid truck in connection with the trade and business of the respondent no.2 from Delhi to Baroda (Gujarat). On 15.09.2003, around 12:30 a.m. while passing through Goverdhan Vilas, Udaipur (Rajasthan), he felt uneasiness. He parked his vehicle and expired. He was taken to the hospital where he was found brought dead. His post mortem was conducted. It was stated that he was 41 years of age at the time of death. (Para 2)
The order passed by the Commissioner awarding compensation was challenged by the Insurance Company[United India Insurance Co. Ltd.] before the High Court. Vide impugned order, the High Court accepted the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner. (Para 3)
The death occurred on account of mental stress and strain arising from the prolonged driving. The Commissioner had rightly accepted the claim. However, the High Court had reversed the order passed by the Commissioner on erroneous grounds. He further submitted that the owner of the truck had purchased the Insurance Policy from the Insurance Company in which an additional premium covering two employees was paid, for coverage of compensation payable under the 1923 Act. The Policy was effective from 30.06.2003 to 29.06.2004. (Para 4)
The Insurance Company submitted that it is not in dispute that the deceased was not driving the vehicle at the time of his death. On the basis of the material produced on record, his death was not directly caused by any accident. (Para 6)
The facts evident from the records are that the deceased Sumer Singh was employed as a driver on vehicle bearing Truck no. DL-1G-B-3976, which was owned by the respondent No. 2. The same was fully insured. The Insurance Policy was effective from 30.06.2003 to 29.06.2004. As per the terms of the Policy available on record, an additional premium was paid to cover two employees for any compensation payable under the 1923 Act. While driving the vehicle from Delhi to Baroda, the health of the deceased deteriorated on 15.09.2003 at about 12:30 a.m. at Goverdhan Vilas, Udaipur (Rajasthan) and he died. Thereafter, the postmortem was conducted. On chemical examination of portions of viscera and blood samples, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquillizers and insecticides, were not found. This report rules out that the death was on account of consumption of poisonous material or liquor. FIR No. 18/2003 dated 15.09.2003 was also registered. It was pleaded in the application filed by the appellants before the Commissioner that the deceased was drawing a monthly salary of ₹3,091/-(Rupees three thousand and ninety one) plus ₹50/-(Rupees fifty) per day as allowance. The appellants were dependents on the deceased as its widow and children. (Para 7)
The arguments raised by the Insurance Company was that there is no material on record to suggest that the death of Sumer Singh occurred due to strain and stress during employment. In case, the deceased employee was already suffering from any existing disease and died on account of that, it cannot be said to be a case of death during the course of employment. The view of the High Court was that there is no relationship between the death and the work being done by the deceased. Hence, the order of the Commissioner was found to be unsustainable. (Para 8)
This Court accepted the appeal filed by the dependents of the deceased and found that even if the death had not occurred on account of any accident but the driver was consistently driving the vehicle, there is every reason to assume that long spells of driving was a material contributory factor, if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected death at a young age. Such an untoward mishap can reasonably be described as an accident, only attributable to the nature of employment. (Para 10)
For the reasons stated above, we find merit in the present appeal. The same stands allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The order of the Commissioner is restored with no order as to costs. (Para 14)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 204 SC
[2023 INSC 756]
Smt. Dariyao Kanwar & Ors. Vs. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Civil Appeal No(S). 5416 of 2012-Decided on 23-8-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-STPLWeb-204-SC.pdf
