Driver Died of Cardiac Arrest During Return Journey; Court Finds Nexus Between Death, Occupational Stress and Long-Distance Driving
Jammu: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has upheld an award of ₹15.74 lakh compensation in favour of the dependents of an oil tanker driver who died of cardiac arrest while returning from Kashmir after unloading the tanker during the course of his employment.
Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed an appeal challenging the award passed on June 27, 2022, by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Rajouri, holding that the evidence on record established a reasonable nexus between the deceased’s cardiac arrest and the stress and strain associated with his employment and long-distance driving.
Driver Collapsed During Journey
According to the case, the deceased was employed as a driver of an oil tanker. On May 21, 2021, while returning from Kashmir after unloading the tanker, he became unconscious during the journey at Pampore.
He was subsequently taken to Sub-District Hospital (SDH) Pampore, where doctors declared him dead. The cause of death was recorded as cardiac arrest.
His dependents thereafter sought compensation under the applicable employment compensation law, contending that the death occurred during and arose out of the course of employment.
Insurer Challenges Compensation Award
The insurance company challenged the compensation award before the High Court, arguing that a cardiac arrest could not automatically be treated as an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.
The insurer also alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
The claimants, however, maintained that the deceased suffered the cardiac event because of the stress, strain and demanding nature of his long-distance tanker-driving duties.
Court Finds Employment Nexus Established
The High Court examined the evidence produced by the claimants, including the testimony of the deceased’s wife and the tanker cleaner.
The Court observed that the evidence supported the fact that the deceased was employed as a tanker driver, was undertaking the journey in connection with his employment and collapsed during that journey.
The Court held that the claimants had specifically pleaded and produced evidence connecting the cardiac arrest with the stress and strain arising from the nature of the deceased’s employment.
Supreme Court Judgments Considered
The insurer had relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shresti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali, arguing that cardiac arrest by itself could not establish a work-related accident.
The High Court, however, distinguished that judgment, observing that in that case there had been inadequate pleading and evidence establishing a connection between the cardiac event and employment.
The Court instead relied upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mst. Param Pal Singh v. M/s National Insurance Co. and Smt. Dariyao Kanwar v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
These judgments recognise that occupational stress and prolonged spells of driving can constitute a material factor in determining whether a death arose out of and in the course of employment, depending upon the evidence available in the particular case.
No Evidence of Alleged Policy Violation
The High Court further noted that although the insurer had alleged violation of the insurance policy, it had not produced evidence sufficient to establish the alleged violation.
The Court therefore found no basis to interfere with the findings recorded by the Assistant Labour Commissioner.
₹15.74 Lakh Compensation Upheld
After considering the pleadings, oral evidence and applicable legal principles, the High Court held that the deceased had died during the course of employment, with the cardiac event attributable to the stress and strain associated with the nature of his duty.
The Court accordingly found no ground to interfere with the compensation award.
The High Court upheld the award of ₹15,74,400, along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, in favour of the deceased driver’s dependents.
The appeal filed by the insurer was consequently dismissed.
The judgment was pronounced on September 28, 2026, and has been marked “Reportable.”(KNC)
