SMT. DARIYAO KANWAR & ORS.versusM/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

                 [2023] 11 S.C.R. 587 : 2023 INSC 756



                           CASE DETAILS

                 SMT. DARIYAO KANWAR & ORS.
                                    v.
       M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
                   (Civil Appeal No(s). 5416 of 2012)
                           AUGUST 23, 2023
           [HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]

                             HEADNOTES

      Issue for consideration: While driving vehicle, health of the driver
deteriorated, he parked his vehicle and died. Whether such untoward mishap
can reasonably be described as an accident, attributable to the nature of
employment.
     Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 – Appellants-claimants filed
application before the Commissioner seeking compensation under the
1923 Act – Compensation of ` 3,26,140/- was granted – However, the
view of the High Court was that there is no relationship between the
death and the work being done by the deceased – High Court held
order of the Commissioner unsustainable – Appellants/claimants filed
appeal:
      Held: Deceased was employed as a driver on Truck, which was
owned by the respondent No. 2 – The same was fully insured – 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 – He parked his vehicle and died – 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 – With these facts on records,
the Commissioner accepted the application and assessed the compensation
at ` 3,26,140/- – In Param Pal Singh’s case, 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
                                    587
588           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 11 S.C.R.


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 –
It squarely covers the case of the appellants – Thus, impugned order passed
by the High Court set aside and order of the Commissioner restored. [Paras
7, 8, 9 and 10]

       LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

     Param Pal Singh Through Father v. National Insurance Co. & Anr.,
(2013) 3 SCC 409 : [2012] 13 SCR 1232; Northeast Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation. v. Sujatha, (2019) 11 SCC 514: [2018] 13 SCR
1043 – relied on.
     Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and Others (1997) 8 SCC 1: [1997] 4
Suppl. SCR 250; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prembai Patel and others,
(2005) 6 SCC 172 : [2005] 3 SCR 655 – referred to.

       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5416 of 2012.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2009 of the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi in FAO No. 346 of 2007.
      Appearances:
     R. K. Nain, Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, Daksh Nain, Chandan Prajapati,
Ms. Shalu, Jinendra Jain, Advs. for the Appellants.
      V. S. Chopra, Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Yashvardhan S. Soam,
Mrs. Usha Pant Kukreti, Mrs. P. Shanthi, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advs.
for the Respondents.
    SMT. DARIYAO KANWAR & ORS. v. M/S UNITED INDIA                            589
              INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.


        JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                                 JUDGMENT
      RAJESH BINDAL, J.
       1. The judgment passed by the High Court1 in an appeal2 filed
by the respondents is challenged before this Court. The appellants are
the claimants who filed application before the Commissioner3 seeking
compensation under the 19234 Act. The application filed by the 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.
      2. Sumer Singh (the deceased) whose legal representatives are
before this Court, was employed as a driver with the respondent no.25
for driving truck bearing no. DL-1G-B-3976. The deceased was assigned
the duty of driving the above said 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.
     3. The order passed by the Commissioner awarding compensation
was challenged by the Insurance Company6 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. The same is
impugned before this Court.



1    High Court of Delhi
2    FAO No. 346 of 2007 dated 16.09.2009
3    Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner
4    The Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 earlier known as Workmen’s Compensation
     Act, 1923
5    Respondent No.2 in the present appeal is Kuldeep Bhatia, owner of the vehicle.
6    United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
590          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 11 S.C.R.


     4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased
Sumer Singh, who was employed as a driver on a commercial vehicle,
was assigned the duty of driving the truck from Delhi to Baroda (Gujarat).
While he was on duty, the incident took place on 15.09.2003. 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.
      5. The Chemical Examiner’s Report also mentioned that testing of
portions of viscera and blood sample resulted in negative for metallic
poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates,
tranquilizers and insecticides. Hence, it cannot be said to be a case of
suicide or drunken driving. Relying upon the judgment of this Court
in Param Pal Singh Through Father v. National Insurance Co. &
Anr., (2013) 3 SCC 409 and Northeast Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation. v. Sujatha, (2019) 11 SCC 514, the argument advanced is
that the dependents of the deceased are entitled to receive compensation.
     6. On the other hand, learned counsel for 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. The incident
may have taken place in the course of employment, but it is not arising
out of employment. Furthermore, the respondents argued that there
is no evidence on record indicating that the deceased had suffered a
heart attack due to stress and strain of driving the truck. It was a Policy
purchased by the owner of the vehicle in terms of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. Hence, the claim should have been made under that Act.
However, that was not availed of, because the death was not the result
of a motor accident. There is no error in the order passed by the High
Court. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. Reliance was placed by Ld.
counsel upon Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and Others (1997) 8
  SMT. DARIYAO KANWAR & ORS. v. M/S UNITED INDIA                           591
   INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

SCC 1; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prembai Patel and others,
(2005) 6 SCC 172.
      7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records. 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.
      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 ` 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
592          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 11 S.C.R.


relationship between the death and the work being done by the deceased.
Hence, the order of the Commissioner was found to be unsustainable.
      9. 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
  SMT. DARIYAO KANWAR & ORS. v. M/S UNITED INDIA 593
   INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

      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).
      12. To be fair to the counsel for the respondents, we may deal with
the judgments relied upon by him. In our view, the judgments relied upon
by him do not support his case.
      13. In Ved Prakash Garg’s case (supra), the issue before this Court
was whether the Insurance Company is liable to meet the award of the
Commissioner imposing penalty and interest against the insured employer.
This is not an issue under consideration in the case in hand. The issue under
consideration in Prembai Patel and Ors’s case (supra) was also different as
this Court was called upon to examine as to whether the Insurance Company
is liable to pay the compensation awarded or its liability is restricted to
the extent prescribed under the 1923 Act. In any case, the claimants in the
present case have been awarded compensation as assessed under the 1923
Act and in the Insurance Policy there was no limit prescribed.
      14. 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.

Headnotes prepared by :                                          Appeal allowed.
Ankit Gyan