Kerala High Court Holds Employer Liable To Compensate For Driver's Death Due To Accident Caused By His Suffering Heart Attack While Driving

Justice PG Ajithkumar by relying upon the Apex Court decision observed that an employer was liable to compensate the kin of deceased employee even if the deceased was not actually driving the vehicle while he was having heart attack.

In the facts of the present case, the Court noted that the deceased employee felt chest pain and collapsed in the car which caused the accident leading to his death. The Court noted that the deceased was a person of 60 years and was driving cars for the past 40 years and he suffered heart attack while driving the car in an accident arising out and in the course of his employment.

“The view taken by the Apex court is that the employer was liable to compensate even if the deceased was not actually driving the truck. When in the course of his driving, he felt discomfort and later, in the hospital, he died due to heart disease, he being a driver for long years subjected to its stress and strain, the death would amount an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The position here is more in favour of the appellants. Following discomfort, the deceased collapsed on the driver’s seat and the accident ensued, resulting in his death. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex court, it can only be held that the death of Sri.Vasu was in the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the 1st respondent.”

The appellant wife and daughter of the deceased employee has approached the High Court under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 challenging the order passed by Employees Compensation Commissioner (Industrial Tribunal), Thrissur. The deceased employee died on February 01, 2006 due to heart attack while driving a taxi car. The appellants approached the Employees Compensation Commissioner for compensation from the owner of the taxi car (1^st respondent) and the insurer (2^nd respondent). It was contended that the death was caused due to heart attack and not in an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. The Employees Compensation Commissioner stated appellants were unable to prove that death was caused in the course of his employment.

The Court found that the taxi car was owned by the 1^st respondent and it was insured by the 2^nd respondent insurance company. It also noted that the deceased met with the accident while driving the car. The Court had to answer whether the death of the employee was due to the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment or not.

The Court stated that the Apex Court in Param Pal Singh (supra) granted compensation to an employee who was a truck driver even when it was contended that death of the deceased was due to natural causes and death had no casual connection to his employment. The Apex Court found that the heart attack was attributable to his nature of employment in which he was involved with his employer in the course of his employment.

The Court found that the deceased suffered heart attack while driving the car which resulted in the accident of his car hitting an electric post. It noted that if there was no heart attack, then there would have been no accident also. It noted that the Apex Court in Param Pal Singh (supra) held that an employee was liable to be compensated for his death due to heart attack even when he was not driving the vehicle. The Court noted that in the present facts of the case, the employee was driving the taxi car while he collapsed due to heart attack which resulted in the accident causing his death.

The Court also noted that Employees Compensation Act was a social legislation, intended to compensate employees and thus has to be interpreted for the benefit of the employees. It held that there must be causal relationship between the accident and the employment. It further stated that if the accident occurred due to a risk which was incidental to the employment, then such accident can be said to be one arising out of and in the course of employment.

On the basis of the above observations, the Court held that the family of the deceased employee was liable to be compensated.

Counsel for the petitioners: Advocate V.C.Madhavankutty

Counsel for the respondents: Advocates K.S.Santhi, Latha Susan Cherian

and Government Pleader Maya N R

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 610

Case title: Leela v M.K. Sukumaran

Case number: MFA (ECC) NO. 136 OF 2018

Click here to download/read Judgment