The court clarified that prolonged driving responsibilities can contribute to occupational hazards justifying compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act.

1. The judgment passed by the High Court (High Court of Delhi) in an appeal (FAO No. 346 of 2007 dated 16.09.2009) filed by the respondents is challenged before this Court. The appellants are the claimants who filed application before the Commissioner (Workmen's Compensation Commissioner) seeking compensation under the 1923 (The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 earlier known as Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923) Act. The application filed by the appellants before the Commissioner was allowed by him vide order dated 22.03.2007. Compensation of Rs.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.2 (Respondent No.2 in the present appeal is Kuldeep Bhatia, owner of the vehicle) for driving truck bearing no. DL - 1G - B - 3976. The deceased was assigned the duty of driving the abovesaid 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 Company (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) before the High Court. Vide impugned order, the High Court accepted the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner. The same is impugned before this Court.

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 effective 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 h