IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the burden of proof lies with the claimants to demonstrate a causal link between employment and the death of the employee, and that the mere occurrence of death during employment does not suffice to establish liability.

JUDGMENT :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

1. The present civil misc. appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (‘Act of 1923’), assailing the award passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Officer, Rajsamand, Bhilwara, vide order dated 20.12.2016 whereby, the claim filed by the appellants/claimants has been dismissed. Certain other ancillary relief(s) have also been sought by the appellants/claimants.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the deceased, Mr. Samant Singh, husband of the appellants/claimants worked as a driver for respondent no. 1, for his truck bearing number RJ-27-G-1257 and used to earn Rs. 5,000/-for the said job. On 05.11.2005, the deceased was taking marble stone to Ahmedabad by the said vehicle and en route, his health deteriorated and subsequently, he died.

3. After the service of notice to the respodents, respondent no. 1, employer did not appear and therefore, the matter was heard ex-parte respondent no.1, employer. Respondent no. 2, insurance company, in its reply denied the factum of the claim and stated that the said incident did not occur due to the insured vehicle bearing number RJ-27-G-1257, and that, the deceased died a natural death. It was also stated by the respondent no.2, insurance company it its reply that, the company was not informed about the said incident and that, there was violation of the policy conditions. It was also stated that the deceased did not possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of the incident, while driving the insured vehicle.

4. Witnesses A.W.1, Sosar Kanwar, A.W.2 Dhan Singh and A.W.3, Kalu Singh were examined from the appellants/claimants’ side, and Exhibits 1 to 6 have been produced by the appellants/claimants. Contrary to this, N.A.W. 1, Bheru Lal was examined from the respondent no. 2/insurance company’s side and Exhibits 1 to 4 have been produced by the respondent no.2.

5. After hearing the parties, the Commissioner framed issues, including:

6. The Commissioner, while deciding the issues held that the deceased, Late Samant Singh did not die in the course of employment and his death was not related to his employment on 05.11.2005 and therefore, the claim of the appellants/claimants was dismissed.

7. Thus, aggrieved of the order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Officer, Jurisdiction Rajsamand, District Bhilwara, dated 20.12.2016, the appellants/claimants have filed the present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the death of the deceased occurred in the course of employment of the respondent no.1, employer, since the deceased was carrying marble stone to Ahmedabad, at the time of his death, which forms a part of his job and therefore, the Commissioner erred in coming to the conclusion that the death did not occur during the course of the employment.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants also submitted that the statement of A.W. 3, Kalu Singh the deceased was already in his ill-health while driving the vehicle on 05.11.2005, cannot be considered in isolation to the fact that the said condition was informed to the employer, respondent no. 1, before the employer assigned the job of taking the marble stones to Ahmedabad, to the deceased. He thus submitted that after disclosing the condition, the burden falls upon the employer, since he assigned the job to the deceased on 05.11.2005, even after knowing that the deceased was not feeling well.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants also submitted that when the deceased was a driver, then stress and strain can be assumed to have occurred during the course of employment which resulted in his death and the burden to prove the contrary lies upon the employer. He also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2019 ACJ 3086. The relevant paras are reproduced as under:

“7. The cited decisions like Jyothi, Shakuntala and Rashida cases (supra) could b