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

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 587 · Decided: 23-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HIMA KOHLI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 587 : 2023 INSC 756
587
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 fi led 
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 fi led 
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 
fi led 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 
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.
589
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 fi led application before the Commissioner3 seeking 
compensation under the 19234 Act. The application fi led 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. T

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.