Back
Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules Cardiac Arrest While Driving is Compensable Accident
A landmark ruling from the has clarified that a driver's cardiac arrest suffered during long-distance driving can be considered an , entitling his dependents to compensation under the .
Justice Shahzad Azeem, presiding over a single-judge bench, dismissed an appeal by the and upheld an award of ₹15,74,400 along with 12% interest per annum granted to the family of Khadam Hussain, an oil tanker driver who died of a heart attack while returning from a delivery in Kashmir.
The Tragic Incident
On , Khadam Hussain, a driver employed by Abdul Hanif, was returning from Kashmir after unloading his oil tanker. At Pampore, he suddenly lost consciousness. He was rushed to the Sub-District Hospital, Pampore, but was declared dead. The post-mortem report attributed the cause of death to cardiac arrest. His dependents—his wife Jan Begum and two sons—filed a claim before the , arguing that the cardiac arrest was a direct result of the of his job, which often required 24×7 driving.
The Legal Dispute
The Assistant Labour Commissioner allowed the claim, awarding compensation. The insurer, Oriental Insurance, appealed to the High Court under , contending that a death due to cardiac arrest could not be said to have "" and that there was no accident in the legal sense. The insurer relied on the 's judgment in to argue that mere death during duty does not raise a of an accident.
The claimants countered that they had specifically pleaded and proved that the heart attack was caused by the of driving a tanker for long hours, and that the evidence of the deceased's mother and the truck cleaner corroborated this.
The Court's Analysis
Justice Azeem closely examined the evidence and found that the claimants had established a clear nexus between the employment and the fatal cardiac event. He noted that the deceased was on a return journey after unloading the tanker—a strenuous task—and collapsed due to cardiac arrest.
The court distinguished the Shakuntala case, observing that in that matter there was no evidence to link the heart attack to employment, and the sole witness had no personal knowledge. In contrast, the present case had specific pleadings and credible witness testimony from the cleaner who accompanied the driver.
The High Court then applied the principles laid down by the in and . In those cases, the apex court held that long spells of driving that cause grave strain can constitute an "accident" and that death from a heart attack during such work is attributable to the nature of employment.
Key Observations
The court made several critical findings:
"The evidence led by the claimants supports the finding of the ALC that the deceased died with respondent No. 4 and that the cardiac arrest had a with the of long distance tanker driving on the returning journey from Kashmir. Those findings do not call for interference."
"Applying that settled law, it is held that Khadam Hussain (employee) died with respondent No. 4 of heart attack on account of attributable to the nature of his duty while returning from Kashmir after unloading the oil tanker."
"In the present case, there are specific pleadings that the owner made the deceased drive the tanker 24 × 7, resulting in health issue, and the claimants have led evidence of the mother and cleaner. The appellant did not impeach that evidence."
The Final Verdict
The High Court found no in the appeal. It held that the Assistant Labour Commissioner's findings were neither nor contrary to law. Consequently, the court dismissed the insurance company's appeal and upheld the compensation award with interest.
The ruling reinforces that employers and insurers cannot escape liability for heart attacks suffered by drivers during the course of their duties, provided the claimants can demonstrate a between the and the cardiac event. It serves as a significant reminder of the protective scope of the Employees' Compensation Act for workers in physically demanding occupations.
