IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.673 of 2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.02.2025 State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Smt. Suman Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CM-2366-CII-2024 This is an application filed under Section 5 and 14 of Limitation Act read with Section 30(3) of the Employee Compensation Act seeking condonation of delay of 621 days in filing the instant appeal.

For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicant/appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Consequently, the present application is allowed. The delay of

621 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

FAO No.673 of 2024 Challenge is to the order dated 7^th of December, 1999 passed by Commissioner, Bhiwani under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1923 Act’).

2. The claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of deceased Raj Kumar who was employed as driver on ambulance bearing registration No.HR-61-1454 on contractual basis at Primary Health Cente, Jui Kalan under NHRM programme under the employment of respondents/State and was getting Rs.10,000/- per month as salary. On 17^th of June, 2014 the deceased died on duty at Primary Health Centre, Jui Kalan on account of heart attack in course of employment.

3. The relationship is not in dispute.

4. The only argument raised is that since deceased died of heart attack, it is a case of natural death and the same would not be covered in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment.

5. I have heard counsel for the appellant and have gone through records of the case.

6. The issue for consideration before this Court is:

‘Whether the death of the deceased can be said to be during the course of employment?’

7. The issue w.r.t. vocation of a driver of a commercial vehicle and the resultant cardiac arrest while driving the vehicle already stands addressed by the Apex Court in the case of in the case of Smt. Dariyao Kanwar and others vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2023 AIR (Supreme Court) 4161 wherein while dealing with the similar circumstances, Apex Court observed as under:

“8. The Commissioner accepted the application filed 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 Rs. 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 suffering 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 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 suffered 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 filed by the dependents of the deceased for claiming compensation under the 1923 Act. The Commissioner accepted the claim wh