* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27.03.2026 + FAO 389/2016 & CM APPL. 29552/2016 M/S AMBALA PATIALA TRANSPORT CO .....Appellant Through: Ms.Ekta Choudhary, Ms.Rushali Sikand and Mr.Ankur Anand, Advocates versus PRATAP SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr.R.K.Nain with Mr.Chandan Prajapati, Mr.Daksh Nain and Mr.Karan Sharma, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. The appellant, being the employer, has preferred the present appeal assailing the impugned award dated 21.05.2015 passed by the learned Commissioner under Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the „EC Act‟), whereby the claim for death compensation was allowed. The employer was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,94,120/- along with 12% simple interest from the date of the accident till its realization. The impugned award came to passed in the context of claim seeking the death compensation by the parents of one, Balbir Singh (hereafter referred to as the „deceased‟).

2. It was claimed that the deceased was employed as a driver on the vehicle bearing No. HR-55-2008, owned by the employer, and that he died out of and during the course of his employment. It was averred that the deceased, on the instructions of his employer, who was in the transport business, undertook an occupational trip from Delhi to Kolkata after getting the vehicle loaded with cycle parts. He was the only driver on the truck. When he reached Aligarh, the engine of the said vehicle broke down. The deceased, who was already under work pressure, fell ill. The vehicle remained parked on the roadside, and despite all efforts, the engine could not be repaired. The employer, however, neither bothered nor came to the rescue of the deceased. The deceased remained lying in the vehicle for about 13 days, and it was a mechanic who informed about the ill health to the brother of the deceased i.e., Jeet Singh, who was also employed as a driver, albeit with a different owner, and was on the way from Delhi to Kolkata. He reached the spot, took the deceased, and admitted to Burdwan Medical College & Hospital for treatment on 05.03.2006 where he expired during the treatment on 20.03.2006. The death was attributed to the employment. It was further claimed that the last drawn wages of the deceased was Rs.4,500/- per month, along with Rs.100/- per day as food allowance. The deceased was aged about 35 years.

3. Apparently, the first claim application filed by the claimant came to be dismissed on 16.09.2009. The order records that the employer had claimed that the vehicle in question did not belong to him and as such claim was dismissed with liberty to file the same on getting details of the real owner of the vehicle. The second claim application was thereafter filed on the same set of facts. however, this time the truck number was not mentioned. Further, the claim application was accompanied by the medical documents of the Burdwan Medical College & Hospital indicating the date of admission as 05.03.2006 as well as the death certificate dated 20.3.2006, where cause of death has been found as „encephalopathy‟.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the employer not only denied the ownership of the vehicle but also denied that the deceased was ever employed as a driver with it. It is also contended that the claim that the deceased remained lying 13 days in truck at Aligarh, and instead of taking him to a nearby hospital, was taken to Burdwan Medical College and Hospital in West Bengal, is improbable and ought not to have been believed by the learned Commissioner.

5. Mr Chandan Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant, on the other hand, contends that the claimants being the parents of the deceased, were not aware of the complete registration number of the truck in question and, therefore, could provide only an incomplete number. Further, the claimants have examined the brother of the deceased, the mechanic who had co