Allahabad High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Meenu Sharma And Others on 1 September, 2017
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 34
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3744 of 2012
Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent :- Smt. Meenu Sharma And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- V.C. Dixit
Counsel for Respondent :- Nigmendra Shukla
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
This appeal has been filed by the insurer against the award dated 13.08.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Workmens' Compensation/Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P., Meerut in E.C.A. 111 of 2010 whereby the Commissioner, Employees Compensation awarded Rs. 4,23,580/- arising from the death of Pramod Sharma the driver who was found dead while driving the insured truck bearing registration no. HR 45 - 6807.
The present appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-
"1. Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was justified in allowing the claim petition under the circumstances when the death was occurred due to heart attack and there was no nexus of death with his employment?
2. Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was justified in awarding compensation under the circumstances when from the evidence and materials which are available on record it was apparently clear that deceased had started his job just few minutes of his death and there was no pressure of job?
3. Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was justified in accepting the employment of the deceased in absence of any documentary evidence regarding employment as well as income of the deceased?
4. When the claim petition is maintainable in absence of notice under Section 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923?"
Briefly, the Tribunal had found, the deceased Pramod Sharma had been engaged by Chirag Mahendru owner of the aforesaid truck. It was also found, on 07.07.2011 the said Pramod Sharma died while driving the aforesaid truck from the premises of the employer Chirag Mahendru to Daraula Sugar Mill at Daraula. The finding is based on the evidence led by Chirag Mehendru (PW-1) as also one Bhura Singh the cleaner of the aforesaid truck.
The oral evidence thus led is very categorical that the deceased had begun driving the truck and had taken it to some distance before he was found slouching unconscious on the steering wheel of the truck, in an unconscious state. He was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. There is no evidence led by the insurer to doubt the correctness of the finding recorded by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation that the deceased Pramod Sharma was died while he was engaged to drive the insured truck it in connection with his employment.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, there was no accident involving the vehicle and therefore the death of Pramod Sharma may have resulted in a liability on the owner but not the insurer.
The aforesaid argument has been stated to be repelled in view of the self apparent and settled position in law arising from a plain reading of Section 3 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Param Pal Singh Vs. National Insurance Company and Anr. reported in (2013) 3 SCC 409 wherein in paragraphs 22 to 29 it has been held as below:-
"22. Once we cross the said hurdle only other question to be considered is whether death of the deceased was in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the second respondent? It is common ground that the vehicle which was driven by the deceased did not meet with any road accident on 17.07.2002. As a matter of fact, the deceased while driving the vehicle from Delhi to Nimiaghat when reached near the destination, namely, Nimiaghat felt giddy and thereafter stated to have collapsed as he was found in a faint condition in the vehicle which he managed to park on the road side.
23. The entitlement to claim compensation is therefore dependent on fulfillment of the stipulations contained in Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which read as under:
"3. Employer's liability for compensation.-(1) If personal injury is caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:
Provided that the employer shall not be so liable -
a) ...... ...... ......
b) ...... ...... ......
i) ...... ...... ......
ii) ...... ...... ......
iii) ...... ...... ......"
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 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the instant case, also the appellant was a truck driver engaged to driver the truck for long distances and it was also proven by the claimants that he had been working under stressfull work conditions, that fact having been admitted by the witness of the employer, itself.
In view of the above, the questions of law raised in the appeal are answered in favour of the claimant-respondents and against the present appellant.
Accordingly, the present appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
The balance amount lying deposited together with interest @ 12% (in accordance with the Act) may be released in favour of the claimant-respondents within a period of two months from today.
Learned counsel for the respondents has also stated, there is an appeal for enhancement. However, the same is not listed today. The claim for enhancement shall be considered in F.A.F.O. No. 3871 of 2012.
Order Date :- 1.9.2017
A. Singh
