Delhi High Court - Orders
National Insurance Co vs Veena Devi & Ors on 18 March, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 158/2016 & CM APPL. 13319/2016
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate
versus
VEENA DEVI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S. N. Parashar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
ORDER
% 18.03.2026
1. The present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees‟ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereafter, the "Act") is directed against the order dated 10.11.2015 passed by learned Labour Commissioner (Distt. East and North East), Labour Department, GNCTD, Delhi - 110095, whereby claim of the respondents seeking death compensation was allowed.
2. Briefly, the claim application came to be filed in the context of the death one Munna Singh (deceased). It was stated that the deceased was working as a Driver with the employer/appellant on vehicle No. HR-38-Q- 9291 and was drawing salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month. On 25.09.2014, while he was on a duty the deceased was compelled by the employer to continue to work without proper rest. It was claimed that the deceased was under lot of stress and strain because of which he suffered a cardiac arrest and died on 25.09.2015. The matter was reported to police and DD No. 47A was registered. It was further stated that the death had occurred during the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:16:33 course of his employment and that the deceased held a valid and subsisting driving licence at the relevant time.
The employer appeared and denied liability, contending that the vehicle was duly ensured with the insurance company, which had also charged an additional premium covering the driver/cleaner towards legal liability. It was further submitted that the vehicle was plying on a valid permit. The employer however, admitted to the employer-employee relationship and further stated that the deceased was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident.
The insurance company also appeared and denied its liability. It was contended that no prior notice under Section 10 of the Act was given before filing of the claim application. Further it denied the liability to pay compensation on account of death occurring on account of stress and strain. It was further argued that the death was due to natural causes and therefore not compensable under the Act.
3. Before this Court, learned counsel for the insurance company reiterated its contentions with respect to non-compliance of Section 10 of the Act. It is further contended that the employer-employee relationship had not been established beyond doubt and that there was alleged collusion between the claimant and the employer. Further, death was stated to have occurred on account of natural cause and in this reliance was placed on the post-mortem report. Lastly, it was contended that the son of the deceased, who was examined as a witness, did not specifically depose that the deceased was under any stress or strain. The employer remained unrepresented despite service.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:16:33
4. Learned counsel for the claimant defended the impugned Award. It was contended that the employer-employee relationship stood admitted by the employer and that the death occurred while he deceased was on duty. Since the vehicle was duly insured, the insurance company could not escape liability under the Act.
5. The scope of appeal under Section 30 of the Act is well settled. It has been repeatedly held that the court of learned Commissioner is the final authority on questions of facts, like the existence of an employer-employee relationship. In the present case, the insurance policy being admitted, the only contention as to whether a „natural death‟ would be covered under the expression „accident‟ is to be looked into. It is noted that even that contention stands covered by number of decisions. Gainful reference can be made to the recent decision in The Chairman, Vaidyanath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & Anr. v. Shantabai & Anr1. wherein while defining the expression „accident‟ the Court has held as under :-
"14. The expression "accident" according to P Ramanatha Aiyar's Advance Law Lexicon Dictionary means "undesigned, sudden or unexpected event; mishap; misfortune; disaster". The word "accident" is derived from the Latin verb "accidere" signifying "fall upon, befall, happen, chance". In other words, it is a sudden and unexpected event taking place without expectation upon the instant, rather than something which continues, progresses or develops; something happening by chance not according to usual course of things or events, out of the range of ordinary calculations; that which exits or occurs abnormally, or an uncommon occurrence.
15. The word "accident" generally denotes an event that takes place without one's foresight or expectation; an event which proceeds from an unknown cause, or is an unusual effect of a known cause, and therefore not expected; chance, casualty, contingency (Webster Dictionary).1
CA @ SLP (C) 29239/2019, Vide order dated 13.02.2025 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:16:33
16. In other words, an "accident" being an unforeseen event causing a misfortune or loss is different from an omission which is as a result of negligence or misconduct. Therefore, the expression "accident" means an untoward mishap which is not expected or designed. In the context of the Act under consideration, the term "accident" for the purpose of seeking compensation for personal injuries sustained would include any injury which is not designed by the workman himself. Thus, the word "accident" would include all mishaps occurring by chance or caused unintentionally and events happening due to unforeseen circumstances under Section 3(1) of the Act. It must be interpreted as mishap or "untoward event not expected or designed" in the popular and ordinary sense. If the injury or death occurred without designed on the part of the workman then the death or injury would be by accident, although it was brought about by a heart attack or some other cause to be found in the condition of the workmen himself. The expression "accident" not being defined under the Act must be interpreted to be an untoward event which is not expected or designed; therefore, an accident means unintended and unexpected occurrence which produces hurt or loss. The interpretation of the word "accident" must be in the popular and ordinary sense and not in a technical sense. Thus, the expression "accident" arising out of and in the course of his employment in Section 3(1) of the Act must be so interpreted as to establish that (1) at the time of the accident he was in fact engaged in the duties of his employment; (2) that it occurred at the place where he was performing those duties; and (3) that the immediate act which led to the accident is not so remote from the sphere of his duties so as to be regarded as something foreign to them."
6. The Court further took note of its earlier decision in 2Shakuntala Chandrakant wherein following principles were required to be proved for attracting the provisions of Section 3 of the Act :-
"(1) There must be a causal connection between the injury and the accident and the accident and the work done in the course of employment.
(2) The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the work and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated the injury.
(3) If the evidence brought on records establishes a greater probability which satisfies a reasonable man that the work contributed to the causing 2 Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruit Garvali reported as (2007) 11 SCC 668 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:16:33 of the personal injury, it would be enough for the workman to succeed, but the same would depend upon the fact of each case."
7. In Shantabai (Supra), the Court was in seisin of similar facts, wherein the deceased was stated to have suffered heart attack due to the work pressure and psychological tensions.
8. In the present case, it was categorically pleaded in the claim application that the deceased was compelled to work without adequate rest. In the present case, the son of deceased, who was examined as a witness, stated that on the date of the accident he had gone to visit his father for taking money and, found him in the vehicle. Shortly thereafter, the deceased fainted.
9. Though learned counsel for the appellant stated that there is no prior notice under Section 10, however, a perusal of the proviso to section 10 would show that prior notice is not absolute must in all cases. No other substantial ground has been raised.
10. Accordingly, considering the limited scope of appeal under Section 30 of the Act, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the same is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed. The pending application shall also stand closed.
11. The amount deposited before this Court shall be released to the claimant within two months of receipt of this order.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J MARCH 18, 2026 ga This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:16:33