The central legal point established in the judgment is that death due to work stress during the course of employment can be considered an accident under the Workmen's Compensation Act, entitling the legal representatives to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant has challenged the order dated 25th January, 2016 whereby the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation awarded compensation of Rs.3,38,880/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the respondents.

2. Respondents No.1 to 10 are the widow, mother, four sons and four daughters of late Nisar Ahmad @ Nisar Khan who was working as a cleaner/helper with respondent No.11 on his vehicle. Respondents No.1 to 10 filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation on the averments that Nisar Ahmad was in the employment of respondent No.11 as a cleaner/helper on truck No. HR-38-N- 4678; Nisar Ahmad was aged 45 years and was getting salary of Rs.4,200/- per month; Nisar Ahmad was ill and was taking rest at his home on 05th July, 2009 when he was called by his employer to attend the duty on the aforesaid truck for going to Saleem; Nisar Ahmad told his employer that he was not feeling well but was told to do duty on the ground that there was no other person to work; when the truck reached Tumkur, Karnataka, the condition of Nisar Ahmad deteriorated due to work stress whereupon the driver, Pradeep took him to doctor who examined and declared him dead.

3. Respondent No.11 is the owner of the truck insured with the petitioner. Respondent No.11 filed the written statement and admitted the employment of the deceased with him as a helper/cleaner on salary of Rs.4,200/- per month plus Rs.200 per day for food/meals allowance. The petitioner admitted the insurance of the vehicle at the time of the accident.

4. The Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation held that the deceased Nisar Ahmad died during the course of his employment with respondent No.11 and the vehicle was validly insured with the appellant. The Commissioner held that the deceased died due to the work stress and was entitled to compensation. The Commissioner determined the compensation of Rs.3,38,880/- according to the last drawn wages and the age of the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that the deceased died due to septicemia and lobar pneumonia as per the forensic report which cannot be said to be accidental injuries. It was further submitted that there was no casual connection between duty assigned and the lung infection suffered by him. Reliance was placed on Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, AIR 2009 SC 2019 ; Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing v. Bai Valu Raja, AIR 1958 SC 881; Regional Director, E.S.I Corpn. v. Francis De Costa, 1992 SCR (3) 23; Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali, (2007) 11 SCC 668, Delhi Transport Corporation v. Manju, 2013 SCC Online Del 4487. It is further submitted that the driving license and permit were invalid and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to recovery rights against respondent No.11.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 10 urged at the time of hearing that the deceased died due to work stress which arose out of and during the course of his employment which is an accident. Reliance was placed on Param Pal Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2013) 3 SCC 409 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Dhani Devi, 2017 ACJ 2239.

7. In Param Pal Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held that the nature of work of the employee has to be considered. The Supreme Court further held the long distance driving from Delhi to Jharkhand would definitely give strain and stress. 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 ye