LI Network
Published on: 26 August 2023 at 13:07 IST
The Supreme Court has granted approval to a Civil Appeal filed by a widow who suffered the loss of her husband, a driver, during his employment.
The Court reinstated the Commissioner’s decision to provide compensation to the widow under the Employee’s Compensation Act of 1923 (1923 Act).
The Court observed that prolonged periods of driving contributed to the driver’s premature death and deemed it an accident attributable to the nature of his job.
The bench, led by Justice Hima Kohli and including Justice Rajesh Bindal, stated, “This Court accepted the appeal filed by the dependents of the deceased and found that even if the death had not occurred due to any accident, the consistent driving by the driver could reasonably be considered a significant contributory factor, if not the sole cause, that accelerated his unexpected death at a young age.
Such an unfortunate incident can be described as an accident, solely linked to the nature of employment.
The referred judgment pertains to an employee who was 45 years old, directly addressing the present appellants’ situation.”
Sumer Singh served as a driver for Kuldeep Bhatia, responsible for transporting goods from Delhi to Baroda. However, on September 15, 2003, while passing through Goverdhan Vilas in Udaipur, Rajasthan, he suddenly fell ill around 12:30 a.m. He parked the vehicle and tragically passed away. He was promptly taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
The post-mortem examination revealed that he was 41 years old at the time of his death. The Insurance Company (Respondent) contested the compensation granted by the Commissioner in the High Court, where their appeal succeeded, resulting in the reversal of the Commissioner’s order. Unhappy with this decision, the Appellant brought a Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Court acknowledged the Insurance Company’s argument that Sumer Singh’s death resulted from a pre-existing ailment and could not be attributed to his employment.
The High Court agreed with the Insurance Company, stating that no correlation existed between the deceased’s death and his work.
“The Insurance Company contended that there is insufficient evidence to indicate that Sumer Singh’s death was a result of strain and stress from his employment. If the deceased employee already suffered from a pre-existing ailment and died due to that, it cannot be classified as a death during the course of employment. The High Court found no connection between the death and the deceased’s work. Consequently, the Commissioner’s order was deemed unsustainable,” the Bench noted.
The Court noted that an additional premium had been paid per the insurance policy to cover two employees for any compensation due under the 1923 Act.
The Appellants applied to the Commissioner, indicating that the deceased received a monthly salary of ₹3,091 and a daily allowance of ₹50. The Appellants, the deceased’s widow and children, relied on his support.
The Court cited the case of Param Pal Singh Through Father v. National Insurance Co. & Anr., (2013) . The Court reiterated that extended periods of driving, if not the exclusive factor, could contribute to the untimely death of the deceased at a young age.
Consequently, the Court granted the Appeal, overturned the challenged order, and reinstated the Commissioner’s decision.