Future Generali India Insurance Co Ltd v. Rajeena & Anr

1. The appellant has challenged the order dated 29th February, 2016 whereby the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation has awarded the compensation of Rs.6,70,160/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the respondents.

2. The respondents are the widow, two daughters and one son of late Allauddin who was working as a driver on truck bearing No.HR-55M-6500 with respondent no.5 for four years before the accident dated 1st May, 2012.

3. On 29th April, 2012, Allauddin was coming from Rajasthan in the aforesaid truck and he unloaded the goods from the aforesaid vehicle near Palam Airport at Delhi on 1st May, 2012. After unloading the goods, he fell 2018:DHC:3618 ill and was taken to Rao Tula Ram Hospital where he was declared brought dead. Respondents no.1 to 4 filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation on the averments that respondent no.5 was taking continuous work from the deceased without providing any holidays and the deceased suffered the heart attack due to the stress of the work. According to the post-mortem report, the deceased died because of cardiac failure. According to the claimants, the deceased died due to the accident arising during the course of his employment.

4. The Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation held that the deceased died due to the accident arising during the course of his employment. The Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation awarded compensation of Rs.6,70,160/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to respondents no.1 to

4.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that the deceased died due to the cardiac failure which is not an accident and therefore, respondents no.1 to 4 are not entitled to compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the deceased was employed as a driver on respondent no.5’s truck bearing no. HR-55M- 6500 and was getting a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month plus Rs.200/- per day as meal allowance and Rs.300/- per trip as commission. Learned counsel denies the contention of the claimants that the driver was getting a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month or he was employed for the last about 4 years before his death. She further submits that the deceased driver died due to the circumstances not related to the employment.

7. Learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 4 urged at the time of the hearing that the deceased suffered cardiac failure due to the stress and strain arising out of his employment which is an accident during the course of the employment. Reliance is placed on Param Pal Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2013) 3 SCC 409.

8. In Param Pal Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court held that the nature of work of the employee has to be considered. The Supreme Court further held the cardiac failure of a 45 year old driver on duty from Delhi to Jharkhand would definitely give strain and stress due to long distance driving. The Supreme Court held the cardiac failure to be an accident considering the nature of work of the employee and the stress and strain during the course of the employment. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder: “27. 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 years 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 kms. 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 dependant solely upon his physical and mental resources & 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 life span. 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.

28. Having regard to the evidence placed on record there was no scope to hold that the deceased was simply travelling in the vehicle and that there was no obligation for him to undertake the work of driving. On the other hand, the evidence as stood established proved the fact that the deceased was actually driving the truck and that in the course of such driving activity as he felt uncomfortable he safely parked the vehicle on the side of the road near a hotel soon whereafter he breathed his last. 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. The appeal stands allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The order of the Commissioner for Workmen‟s Compensation shall stand restored and there shall be no order as to costs.”

9. In the present case, the deceased was working as a driver with respondent no.5 for last four years before the accident. According to respondents no.1 to 4, respondent no.5 was not giving any leave or time to rest to the deceased driver who was working under immense stress and strain which resulted in the cardiac failure.

10. This Court is of the view that the cardiac failure of the deceased due to stress is an accident arising out of and during the course of the employment of the deceased with respondent no.5.

11. The appeal is dismissed. Pending application is disposed of. MAY 30, 2018 J.R.MIDHA, J. ak