Cardiac death attributable to driving stress arises out of and in the course of employment.

The claimants, dependants of Khadam Hussain, claimed compensation after he died of cardiac arrest on 21 May 2021 while returning from Kashmir after unloading an oil tanker owned by respondent No. 4 and insured by the appellant.

They alleged that the death resulted from the stress and strain of his employment as the tanker’s driver.

The Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALC) awarded compensation of ₹15,74,400 with interest at 12% per annum and held the insurer liable to indemnify the owner.

The insurer appealed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, disputing the employment connection and alleging a policy violation.

The owner was set ex parte; the insurer led no evidence on its policy-violation plea.

Whether the employee’s death from cardiac arrest arose out of and in the course of his employment as a tanker driver

Whether the insurer established a policy violation that relieved it of liability to indemnify the vehicle owner

Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, provides the basis for the appeal against the ALC’s award.

For compensation, the death must arise “out of and in the course of” employment; death while on duty alone does not establish that connection, and the required connection between employment-related stress and strain and the death must be established.

In Shakuntala Chandrakant Shresti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali, (2007) 11 SCC 668, the Supreme Court held that death during duty does not by itself raise a presumption of accident and that the employment connection must be proved.

In Mst. Param Pal Singh v. M/s National Insurance Co., (2013) 3 SCC 409, and Smt. Dariyao Kanwar v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 18 SCC 210, the Supreme Court recognised that the strain of long-distance driving may constitute a material contributory factor in an unexpected death and support a finding that it arose out of and in the course of employment.

A party bearing the onus of proving a policy breach must establish it by evidence.

The employee’s employment as a tanker driver and his death during the return journey after unloading were not disputed.

The claimants’ evidence—including testimony from the deceased’s wife and the tanker’s cleaner—supported their account that he collapsed during the journey and that the death was attributable to the stress and strain of his driving duties.

The Court found this evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable nexus between the employment and the cardiac arrest, distinguishing Shakuntala Chandrakant Shresti because, unlike that case, the employment connection here was specifically pleaded and supported by evidence.

Applying Param Pal Singh and Dariyao Kanwar, the Court held that the strain of long-distance driving could materially contribute to an unexpected death.

The insurer adduced no evidence to prove its policy-breach allegation, so that defence failed.

Finding no substantial question of law and no perversity or legal error in the ALC’s findings, the Court upheld the award and dismissed the appeal and connected applications.