Cardiac Arrest Due To Stress And Strain Of Long-Distance Driving Is Compensable Under Employees' Compensation Act: J&K&L High Court

The Court was hearing an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, filed by Oriental Insurance Company Limited against an award passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Rajouri. The Commissioner had awarded ₹15,74,400 along with interest at 12% per annum to the dependents of deceased driver Khadam Hussain, who suffered cardiac arrest while returning from Kashmir after unloading an oil tanker.

Justice Shahzad Azeem held that the evidence supported the finding that the deceased died during the course of employment and that his cardiac arrest had a reasonable nexus with the stress and strain of long-distance tanker driving. The Court observed,

“Applying that settled law, it is held that Khadam Hussain (employee) died during the course of employment with respondent No. 4 of heart attack on account of stress and strain attributable to the nature of his duty while returning from Kashmir after unloading the oil tanker.”

Background:

The respondents, dependents of deceased Khadam Hussain, filed a claim petition before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Rajouri, stating that Hussain was employed as a driver by Abdul Hanif and was driving his oil tanker.

According to the claimants, Hussain died on May 21, 2021 at Pampore while returning from Kashmir after unloading the tanker, having suffered cardiac arrest due to the stress and strain of his employment.

The insurer contested the claim, principally arguing that the death was caused by cardiac arrest and did not arise out of or in the course of employment. It also alleged violation of the insurance policy.

The Assistant Labour Commissioner framed issues concerning whether the deceased died during and in the course of his employment, whether the claimants were entitled to compensation, the deceased's age and wages, and whether the insurer was liable.

Before the High Court, the insurer maintained that cardiac arrest had no proximity to the nature of employment and relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shresti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali.

The claimants, on the other hand, submitted that they had specifically pleaded and proved that the cardiac arrest resulted from the stress and strain of employment.

Court's Observation:

Adjudicating the matter Justice Azeem identified the central question as whether the deceased's cardiac arrest was attributable to the stress and strain of his employment as a tanker driver and consequently constituted an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

The Court noted that it was undisputed that Hussain was employed as a driver and that he died on May 21, 2021 while returning from Kashmir after unloading the oil tanker. At Pampore, he became unconscious, was taken to Sub-District Hospital, Pampore, and was declared dead.

The evidence of respondent No. 1, Jan Begum, was that Hussain was employed as a driver on a salary of ₹15,000 per month besides ₹100–150 per day as diet charges. She stated that he suffered cardiac arrest while returning after unloading the tanker and attributed the cardiac event to the stress and strain of duty. Her evidence regarding the employment, journey and collapse was corroborated by Mohd. Asif, the cleaner/conductor of the tanker.

The Court also considered the daily diary record and post-mortem report, which showed that Hussain was brought to the hospital in an unconscious condition and was declared dead due to cardiac arrest.

On the insurer's plea of policy violation, the Court noted that the onus had been placed upon the appellant but that the insurer had led no evidence in support of the plea. The alleged policy violation, therefore, remained unproved. Document

The Court found that the evidence led by the claimants supported the Assistant Labour Commissioner's conclusion that the deceased died during the course of employment and that the cardiac arrest had a reasonable nexus with the stress and strain of long-distance tanker driving while returning from Kashmir.

The Court held, “Those findings do not call for interference.”

The Court then considered the insurer's reliance on Shakuntala Chandrakant Shresti. It found that the decision was distinguishable on facts. In that case, according to the Court, it had neither been adequately pleaded nor proved that the deceased's heart attack was attributable to employment, and the only witness lacked personal knowledge. The Supreme Court had consequently held that death during duty, by itself, did not raise a presumption of accident and that stress and strain had to be established.

In the present case, however, the Court noted that there were specific pleadings that the owner made the deceased drive the tanker 24×7, resulting in health issues, and that the claimants had led evidence through the deceased's mother and the tanker cleaner. The insurer had not impeached that evidence.

The Court thereafter relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in Mst. Param Pal Singh v. M/s National Insurance Co. and another, 2013 (3) SCC 409. In that case, a truck driver had felt uncomfortable while driving, parked the vehicle by the roadside and died shortly thereafter. The Supreme Court had held that the driver had undergone grave strain and that the untoward mishap constituted an “accident” attributable to the nature of employment.

The Court accordingly applied the principles emerging from those decisions to the evidence before it and concluded that the deceased's death was connected with the nature and strain of his employment.

It further held that since the tanker was insured with the appellant and no breach of the insurance policy had been proved, the Assistant Labour Commissioner had rightly fastened liability upon the insurer to indemnify the award.

The High Court found no substantial question of law warranting interference with the award dated June 27, 2022. It held that the findings of the Assistant Labour Commissioner were neither perverse nor contrary to law.

The Court consequently upheld the award of ₹15,74,400 with interest at 12% per annum, holding the insurer liable to indemnify the compensation awarded to the dependents of deceased Khadam Hussain.

The appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Company Limited was accordingly dismissed, along with the connected application(s), if any.

Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jan Begum & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326

Appearances

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.: Amrit Sarin, Advocate

Respondents: Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment Document