HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THR ITS BRANCH MANAGER, AURANGABADversusASHA DATTU SONAWANE AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:39794


                                                   1                        45-fa-2631-2018.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                 FIRST APPEAL NO.2631 OF 2018
                                      WITH CA/8175/2018
              HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
              Through it's Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory,
              1st Floor, Renuka Complex,
              Nirala Bazaar, Nageshwarwadi, Aurangabad
              Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.                        ..Appellant

                     VERSUS
              1)     Asha Dattu Sonawane,
                     Age: 26 Years, Occu: Household,
              2)     Tanmay Dattu Sonawane,
                     Age: 6 years, Occu: Nil,
                     (Respondent Nos.2 being minor U/g.
                     of Respondent No.1 i.e. mother)
              3)     Sunandabai Hiraman Bua @ Sonawane,
                     Age: 69 Years, Occu: Household,
              4)     Hiraman Jagannath Bua @ Sonawane,
                     Age: 65 Years, Occu. Nil,
                     All R/o. Nyahlod, Dhule,
                     Tal. & Dist. Dhule,
              5)     Dinesh Fulchand Pardeshi,
                     Age: Major, Occu. Business,
                     R/o. Plot No.11, Khaddajin Badgujar Plot,
                     Parola Road, Dhule,
                     Tq. & Dist. Dhule.                         ..Respondents
                                                 …
                          Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Mohit R. Deshmukh
                         Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. S.S. Patil
                                                 ...
                                             CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                             DATED : AUGUST 31, 2026

              ORDER :

              1.        Respondent nos.1 to 4, being widow, daughter and parents
                                     2                         45-fa-2631-2018.odt


respectively of one Dattu Hiraman Sonawane, filed Application (ECA)

No.70 of 2016 on account of his demise, purportedly during course of

employment as a driver with respondent no.5. It is the case of

respondent nos.1 to 4 that deceased was employed as driver with

respondent no.5 and on 20.08.2016, while he was driving truck owned

by respondent no.5, at around 10:30 p.m., he fell ill and was required

immediate medical attention. It is stated that he died within a span of

three hours on 21.08.2016 at about 01:30 a.m. It is stated that the

death has occurred due to stress and strain of continuous driving.

Respondent no.5/employer admitted that deceased was employed by

him as driver and stated that the monthly wages of the deceased were

Rs.8,000/-. It was also admitted that he died during course of

employment. The vehicle was insured with the present appellant. The

present appellant took a stand that the deceased died as a natural death

and, therefore, the claimants were not entitled to claim compensation

on account of his demise. The contention is raised that the employer

had not insured the employee for the claim under the Employees

Compensation Act, 1923. It is contended that admittedly the deceased

did not expire while he was actually driving for his employer,

respondent no.5. Learned Compensation Commissioner has allowed

the claim by judgment and order dated 14.03.2018 holding the

employer/respondent no.5 and present appellant/insurance company
                                      3                        45-fa-2631-2018.odt


jointly and severally liable to pay amount of compensation of

Rs.8,61,120/- towards compensation.

2.        The contention of Mr. Mohit Deshmukh, learned Advocate for

the appellant/insurance company is that the death of deceased/driver

has not arisen out of employment. His contention is that there is no

causal   connection   between   the   demise   of   deceased   and     his

employment. Learned Advocate places reliance on the judgment of this

Court in the case of HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited

Vs. Pandurang Hiraman Patil and Another (First Appeal 1433 of 2019)

decided at Aurangabad Bench on 20.10.2023 , and another decision of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Agarwal Vs. Rajshri Agarwal

and others reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 1374.

3.        In the case of Pandurang Hiraman Patil (supra), the deceased

was employed as a cleaner on the truck. The truck was parked during

night time when the driver and cleaner halted for night stay. The

cleaner was found dead by the driver in the cabin of truck in morning

on the next day. In such circumstances, the dependents of the deceased

cleaner lodged claim under the Employees Compensation Act against

employer and insurance company. Taking an overall view of several

decisions on the point, this Court recorded that in order to entertain a

claim for payment of compensation under the Employees Compensation

Act, causal connection between employment and death must be
                                      4                        45-fa-2631-2018.odt


established on the basis of material available on record. In the facts of

that case where the employee was murdered during night halt of the

truck, this Court arrived at a conclusion that there is no connection

between death of the employee and his employment. In the peculiar

facts of that case, holding that the death was not caused during the

course of employment, this Court held that the case was not one of

accidental death and accordingly allowed the appeal.

4.        In the case of Dilip Agarwal (supra) decided by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, a claim was lodged seeking compensation under

Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The deceased was travelling in

a motor car and was kidnapped and murdered in the motor car. It is in

this set of facts that the claim for compensation under Section 166 was

lodged by his dependents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that

such a case of murder would not mean that the death had occurred out

of use of motor vehicle. The claim of the dependents was therefore

dismissed.

5.        Mr. Mohit Deshmukh strongly argues that in the present case

as well, although the deceased/employee was plying the truck, the

death has not occurred during the course of employment, in-as-much as

he has de-boarded the truck and died thereafter while he was actually

not plying the vehicle.

6.        The fact that the deceased was employed as driver with
                                      5                         45-fa-2631-2018.odt


respondent no.5 is established. It is also proved that on 20.08.2016, he

was plying a truck as an employee of respondent no.5. The material on

record indicates that at around 10:30 p.m. he got down from the truck

since he was not feeling well, leaving the same with his co-driver. The

deceased had expired at around 01:30 a.m. on 21.08.2016. Thus,

within a short period of three hours, the deceased expired, the cause of

death being heart attack.

7.       It is by now well settled that the heart attack during course of

employment is also an accident arising during course of employment.

The legal position in this regard is rightly considered by learned

Compensation Commissioner by placing reliance on one such judgment

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Param Pal Singh Vs. National

Insurance Co. Ltd and another reported in 2013 ACJ 526. As regards

the contention that the death has not occurred during course of

employment, in the considered opinion of this Court, in the peculiar

facts of the present case, although the deceased/driver was not actually

driving the truck at the time of his demise, shortly before his demise, he

was actually driving the vehicle. The medical situation that developed

while he was driving the truck caused his death within a span of three

hours. He was required to leave the truck due to medical condition that

has developed while driving the truck during course of employment. In

that view of the matter, it will not be possible to accept the contention
                                                   6                         45-fa-2631-2018.odt


             of learned advocate for the appellant/insurance company that the

             death is not on account of accident caused during employment. The

             medical condition which caused death had developed while the

             deceased/driver was driving the truck during course of his employment

             and he died shortly thereafter within a span of three hours.

             8.       In that view of the matter, it must be held that the death of

             the deceased has a causal connection with his employment i.e. driving

             of the vehicle. In view of the aforesaid, substantial question of law that

             is sought to be canvassed does not arise in the peculiar set of facts in

             the present case.

             9.       The appeal is therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs.

             10.      Civil Application No.8175 of 2018 stands disposed of.




                                                          [ROHIT W. JOSHI J.]




Mujaheed//