SMT. DARIYAO KANWAR & ORS. versus M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 587, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
[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. 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 ﬁ led 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.
SMT. DARIYAO KANWAR & ORS. v. M/S UNITED INDIA 
INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
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 eﬀ ective 
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 suﬀ ered 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
591
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 eﬀ ective 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 ﬁ led 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 ﬁ fty) per day as allowance. 
The appellants were dependents on the deceased as its widow and children. 
8. The Commissioner
accepted the application ﬁ led 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 suﬀ ering 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 
SMT. DARIYAO KANWAR & ORS. v. M/S UNITED INDIA 
INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
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 suﬀ ered 
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 ﬁ led 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 ﬁ led 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 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 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 
deﬁ nitely 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
593
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 
justiﬁ ed 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 diﬀ erent 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 ﬁ nd 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
SMT. DARIYAO KANWAR & ORS. v. M/S UNITED INDIA 
INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]