(O&M) G.M. Hary.Roadways, Fbd. Thr. Hary.State vs Roshani Devi

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

1 FAO-238-2000 WITHXOBJC-14-CII-2001



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-238-2000 with
XOBJC-14-CII-2001


1 The date when the judgment was reserved 05.08.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 02.09.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 03.09.2026
4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced
or whether the full judgment is pronounced
Full
5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment
and reasons thereof.
Not
applicable

G.M. HARYANA ROADWAYS AND ANOTHER …Appellants
Vs.
ROSHANI DEVI AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. Raj Partap Singh Brar, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate for the respondent.



HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act'), challenge has been laid to
the award dated 15.09.1998 passed by the learned Commissioner under
the Act, at Rohtak, whereby compensation of Rs.75,824/- along with
interest and penalty was awarded in favour of the respondents-claimants
on account of death of Joginder Singh, while in the course of his
employment as a driver with Haryana Roadways.
2. Briefly stating, the deceased was working as a driver with the
appellants. On 24.01.1994, while driving bus bearing registration No.HR-
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.03 17:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2 FAO-238-2000 WITHXOBJC-14-CII-2001


29-0251 from Jagadhari to Palwal and while on duty, he suffered a severe
heart attack and died at the spot. The claimants, being his widow and
minor children/dependants, accordingly filed the claim petition.
3. The learned Commissioner, on appreciation of the evidence led
by the parties, came to the conclusion that the deceased suffered the fatal
heart attack while on duty and that the death arose out of and in the
course of his employment. Compensation of Rs.75,824/- was thereafter
assessed, besides interest @ 6% per annum and penalty.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned
Commissioner erred in holding that the death of Joginder Singh, who
admittedly died due to a heart attack, arose out of and in the course of his
employment. It was contended that the mere fact that the deceased was
on duty or travelling on the route assigned to him would not, by itself,
establish any causal nexus between his employment and the cardiac
attack suffered by him. He further submitted that the deceased did not
suffer any external injury or accident and, in fact, died a natural death due
to a heart ailment. Learned counsel further submitted that the deceased
was not actually driving the vehicle at the relevant time and, therefore, the
finding recorded by the learned Commissioner was contrary to the
evidence on record. As regards quantum, learned counsel submitted that
the compensation of Rs.75,824/- awarded by the learned Commissioner
was also not in accordance with the statutory formula and was on the
higher side.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents-claimants submitted that the deceased was admittedly
employed as a driver with Haryana Roadways and suffered a fatal heart
attack while discharging his duty and driving the bus on the route
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.03 17:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3 FAO-238-2000 WITHXOBJC-14-CII-2001


assigned to him. It was argued that the expression "arising out of and in
the course of employment" has to be construed liberally keeping in view
the beneficial and social-welfare object of the Act. According to learned
counsel, the nature of the deceased's employment, namely, driving a
passenger bus on a long route, involved physical and mental strain, which
had a direct nexus with the cardiac episode resulting in his death. Learned
counsel further submitted that the learned Commissioner wrongly
assessed the age of the deceased as 30 years and also restricted his
wages to Rs.1,000/- despite the claimants having pleaded monthly wages
of Rs.3,000/-. The compensation, therefore, deserved to be enhanced by
applying the relevant factor corresponding to the actual age of the
deceased and the wages admissible under the Act. Learned counsel also
seeks interest and appropriate penalty in accordance with the statutory
provisions.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
paper-book.
7. In the present case, the relationship of employer and employee
is not in dispute. The deceased was admittedly employed as a driver with
the appellants and the incident occurred while he was on duty and
travelling on the assigned route. The contention that the deceased was
not driving the bus at the relevant time is contrary to the factual position
noticed by the learned Commissioner and the material available on
record. The stray observation in the award to the contrary cannot displace
the consistent finding that the deceased suffered the fatal heart attack
while performing his duty as a driver. The question as to whether a death
caused by heart attack can constitute an accident arising out of and in the
course of employment is no longer res integra . In Mackinnon Mackenzie
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.03 17:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4 FAO-238-2000 WITHXOBJC-14-CII-2001


& Co. (P) Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak , AIR 1970 SC 1906 , it was
held that there has to be a causal connection between the employment
and the death and that where the employment contributes to or
accelerates the death, the same would arise out of employment. Likewise,
in Mst. Param Pal Singh through Father v. M/s National Insurance Co.
& another , (2013) 3 SCC 409 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while
considering the case of a professional heavy vehicle driver who suffered a
fatal cardiac event during driving, held that the constant driving of a heavy
vehicle, dependent upon the driver's physical and mental resources and
endurance, could be a material contributory factor which accelerated the
unexpected death. The Court consequently found a causal connection
between the death and employment.
7.1 In the present case, the deceased was a professional driver and
suffered the fatal cardiac attack while on duty and operating the vehicle on
a regular passenger route. The nature of such employment necessarily
involves sustained physical and mental exertion, attention and
responsibility. In these circumstances, the finding recorded by the learned
Commissioner that the death arose out of and in the course of
employment cannot be said to be perverse or based upon no evidence.
The same, therefore, calls for no interference.
8. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned
Commissioner has taken the monthly wages of the deceased as
Rs.1,000/-, though his widow claimed that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per
month. Since the accident took place on 24.01.1994, the compensation
has to be determined with reference to the statutory provisions as they
stood on the date of accident. At that point of time, for the purposes of
Section 4(1)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the monthly
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.03 17:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5 FAO-238-2000 WITHXOBJC-14-CII-2001


wages could not be taken beyond the prescribed statutory ceiling of
Rs.1,000/-. The deceased was 38 years of age at the time of the accident.
Under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, in a case of death, the compensation is
to be calculated at 50% of the monthly wages multiplied by the
relevant factor specified in Schedule IV. For a workman aged 38 years,
the relevant factor is 189.56. Accordingly, the compensation payable
works out as under:
Rs. 1,000 x 50% x 189.56 = Rs. 94,780/-.
Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.94,780/- . To this extent, the award passed by the learned
Commissioner, whereby compensation of Rs.75,824/- was granted, is
liable to be modified. The cross-objections filed by the claimants, insofar
as they seek enhancement of the principal compensation, are thus liable
to be allowed to the aforesaid extent.
9. Coming to the question of interest, the learned Commissioner has
awarded interest @ 6% per annum on the compensation amount from
24.02.1994 till the date of the award. The same, however, cannot be
sustained to the extent that interest has not been granted from the date of
accident. The issue is no longer res integra . In P. Meenaraj v. P.
Adigurusamy & another , Civil Appeal No.209 of 2022, decided on
06.01.2022 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions
of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, specifically held that the
statutory period of 30 days does not put a moratorium on the liability to
pay interest. It was further held that there was no reason for denying
interest for the said period and that the claimant would be entitled to
interest from the date of accident . Relevant paras thereof is reproduced
hereunder:-
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.03 17:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6 FAO-238-2000 WITHXOBJC-14-CII-2001


“10. As regards the date of commencement of the liability of interest, the learned
counsel for the appellant appears to be right that even in the case of Pratap
Narain Singh Deo (supra), this Court has not laid down the law that the interest
would be payable only 30 days after the accident. In our view too, the said
statutory period of 30 days does not put a moratorium over the liability of interest.
Such interest is related with the amount of compensation receivable by the
claimant and there appears no reason for not allowing interest for 30 days from
the date of accident. In fact, in the referred decisions too, this Court has allowed
interest from the date of accident. That being the position, the questioned part of
the order of the High Court calls for interference and the same is modified to the
extent that the appellant would be entitled to interest from the date of accident.
11. The appeal is allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above.”
9.1 The aforesaid principle squarely applies to the facts of the
present case. The deceased Joginder Singh died on 24.01.1994 while on
duty and the compensation payable to his dependants remained unpaid.
Consequently, the respondents-claimants are entitled to interest on the
compensation amount from the date of accident itself, i.e. 24.01.1994 , and
not from 24.02.1994 as directed by the learned Commissioner.
9.2 As regards the rate of interest, since the accident in the present
case occurred on 24.01.1994, the rate applicable to the claim has to be
determined with reference to the statutory position prevailing on the date
of accident. The subsequent amendment enhancing the statutory rate of
interest cannot be applied retrospectively. Accordingly, the claimants shall
be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the compensation amount of
Rs.94,780/- from 24.01.1994 till the date of actual realization .
9.3 Furthermore, insofar as the imposition of penalty is concerned, the
learned Commissioner levied penalty @10% of the compensation amount.
Since, the compensation is being enhanced to Rs.94,780/-, the penalty
would ordinarily be calculated @10% thereof. However, keeping in view
the fact that the accident occurred on 20.01.1994, whereas the award
came to be passed only on 15.09.1998, and no compensation was
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.03 17:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7 FAO-238-2000 WITHXOBJC-14-CII-2001


deposited during the intervening period of nearly four years, this Courts
deems it appropriate to enhance the penalty to 20% of the compensation
amount. Accordingly, as regards penalty, is quantified at Rs.18,956/- .
10. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed .
The cross-objections filed by respondents No.1 to 5 are partly allowed .
The award dated 15.09.1998 passed by the learned Commissioner under
the Workmen's Compensation Act, Rohtak, is modified to the aforesaid
extent. The appellants shall deposit the entire amount payable under the
modified award before the learned Commissioner within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing
which the respondents-claimants shall be at liberty to seek execution
thereof in accordance with law.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.

September 02, 2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
Tejwinder JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.03 17:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document