High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/2343/2024disposed of

United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Santosh And ORS

2024-12-09Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CM-8787-CII-2024 in/and Date of decision : 09.12.2024 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant

Versus

Santosh and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present:

Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) CM-8787-CII-2024 This is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 380 days in filing the instant appeal. For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicant/appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Consequently, the present application is allowed. The delay of 380 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. FAO No.2343 of 2024 Insurer is in appeal aggrieved of the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the Commissioner under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1923) allowing the claim petition filed

by the claimants who died during the course of employment. 2.

Claim petition was filed by the claimants, pleading that Narender was working under employment of respondent No.1 as driver on a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. It was claimed that respondent No.1 used to take long and excessive duty, due to which deceased could not take proper rest and sleep. After performing long distance journey from 05.01.2018 to 07.01.2018, deceased slept in cabin of the truck and in the morning of 08.01.2018 he was found dead. Claimant claimed that deceased died due to heart attack on account of stress and strain of work during employment. 3.

The relationship is not disputed.

The only argument raised is that since deceased died of heart attack, it is a case of natural death and the same would not be covered in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment. 5.

I have heard counsel for the appellant and have gone through records of the case.

The precise issue arose before this Court in FAO No.4014 of 2024 decided vide judgment dated 30th of August, 2024 relying upon ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Dariyao Kanwar & others vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another, 2023 AIR Supreme Court 4161. This Court held as under : 6.

...The extent of liability of employer is governed by provision as contained under Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 which reads as under:-

# $

(

( !

) *+ ,-,.

$ * /

(

$ 0 /

$ " /

1 !

# $

$ " /

# $

$ 0 /

$ " /

$ 0

$ "

$ " /

2 3

1 !

/ 1 !

)14

(

1 !

* %

6/!

--*2

+ 7

"!"

! *.8 9.

:* ;

.,-2*

. 3

(

. <.

! "#$#

# "8. The Commissioner accepted the application filed by the appellants. It was noticed in the order passed by the Commissioner that, the employer admitted that the deceased was employed as a driver and he was on duty from Delhi to Baroda on 15.09.2003. The wages being paid to him were also admitted. With these facts on records, the Commissioner accepted the application and assessed the compensation at Rs. 3,26,140/- (Rupees three lakh twenty-six thousand one hundred and forty). Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner, the Insurance Company preferred an appeal before the High Court. 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.

The judgment of this Court in Param Pal Singh's case (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the appellants, comes to their rescue. In that case, the deceased was a truck driver. While on duty, he suddenly suffered health set back and parked his vehicle on roadside hotel. After parking the vehicle, he fainted and was taken to the hospital. He was declared brought dead. An application was filed by the dependents of the deceased for claiming compensation under the 1923 Act. The Commissioner accepted the claim whereas the order passed by the Commissioner was set aside by the High Court. The dependents filed an appeal before this Court. It is noticed in the

aforesaid judgment that additional premium was paid for coverage of compensation payable under the 1923 Act. 10.

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. In the aforesaid judgment, the employee was 45 years of age. It squarely covers the case of the appellants. The relevant paras of the decision are extracted below: "29.

Applying the various principles laid down in the above decisions to the facts of this case, we can validly conclude that there was causal connection to the death of the deceased with that of his employment as a truck driver. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a 45- year-old driver meets with his unexpected death, may be due to heart failure while driving the vehicle from Delhi to a distant place called Nimiaghat near Jharkhand which is about 1152 km away from Delhi, would have definitely undergone grave strain and stress due to such long-distance driving.

The deceased being a professional heavy vehicle driver when undertakes the job of such driving as his regular avocation it can be safely held that such constant driving of heavy vehicle, being dependent solely upon his physical and mental resources and endurance, there was every reason to assume that the vocation of driving was a material contributory factor if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected death to occur which in all fairness should be held to be an untoward mishap in his lifespan. Such an "untoward mishap" can therefore be reasonably described as an "accident" as having been caused solely attributable to the nature of employment indulged in with his employer which was in the course of such employer's trade or business.

30. .......................In such circumstances, we are convinced that the conclusion of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation that the death of the deceased was in an accident arising out of and in the

course of his employment with the second respondent was perfectly justified and the conclusion to the contrary reached by the learned Judge of the High Court in the order impugned in this appeal deserves to be set aside."

(emphasis supplied)

11. Similar view was expressed by this Court in Northeast Karnataka Road Transport Corpn's case. (supra)."

*.>

.8 7.

In view of aforesaid ratio, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the pure finding of facts recorded by the Commissioner exercising powers under the Act of 1923. There is no question of law much less substantial question of law raised in the appeal which is essential to maintain appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923. 8.

Finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. December 09, 2024 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No