Bombay High Court
Indubai Raju Chavan vs Branch Manager Sbi General Insurance ... on 25 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:9045
Dilwale 1 68-WP-393-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
68 WRIT PETITION NO. 393 OF 2021
Indubai Raju Chavan
VERSUS
Branch Manager Sbi General Insurance Company
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shinde Manoj D.
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Dahat R. H.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 25.02.2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2019 passed
below Exhibit-21 by the Permanent Lok Adalat in Pre-Litigation
Application Dispute No.94/2018, whereby the application filed by the
petitioner came to be dismissed.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under :
The applicant had filed an application under Section 22-C(1) of the
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 seeking compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum on account of the
death of her husband.
4. It was contended before the Permanent Lok Adalat that the
applicant's husband was working as a driver on vehicle bearing No. MH-
15/GA-1277 belonging to Rubika Sathe, Nashik. On 08.06.2018,
Dilwale 2 68-WP-393-21.odt
deceased Raju Chavan had gone to Beed. The said vehicle was parked in
front of Mahavir Petrol Pump. Thereafter, Raju Chavan was found dead in
the said vehicle. Pursuant thereto, A.D. No.20/2018 was registered at
Shivajinagar Police Station. Post-mortem was conducted and as per the
post-mortem report, the cause of death was recorded as "Acute
Myocardial Infarction due to Coronary Artery Disease."
5. The vehicle was insured with the respondent and as per the
insurance policy, personal accident coverage to the owner-driver to the
extent of Rs.2,00,000/- was provided. According to the applicant, since
the death occurred during the course of employment and while driving
the insured vehicle, the same ought to be treated as an accident covered
under the policy.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that despite issuance of notice, the
respondent failed to pay the compensation amount. Initially, a complaint
was filed before the District Consumer Forum; however, the same was
withdrawn as not maintainable. Thereafter, the applicant approached the
Permanent Lok Adalat seeking compensation.
7. The respondent appeared and resisted the application contending
that the death of the husband of the petitioner was not accidental but
occurred due to a heart attack and, therefore, was not covered under the
insurance policy.
8. After considering the submissions advanced by both sides, the
Dilwale 3 68-WP-393-21.odt
Permanent Lok Adalat dismissed the application by order dated
04.07.2019. Hence, the present petition.
9. Mr. Manoj Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that
there is no dispute that the death was on account of heart attack.
However, he submits that the deceased had driven the vehicle from
Nashik to Beed and while on duty, due to stress and strain of driving, he
suffered a heart attack. According to him, the said incident occurred
during the course of employment and therefore must be treated as an
accidental death within the meaning of the policy.
10. He further submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat dismissed the
application on two grounds -- firstly, that its jurisdiction is limited and
the proceedings are summary in nature; and secondly, that death due to
heart attack is a natural death and not an accident. According to him,
both findings are erroneous.
11. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Smt. Dariyao Kanwar v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd.." reported in 2023 INSC 756.
12. Per contra, Mr. R. H. Dahat, learned counsel for the respondent,
supports the impugned order and submits that the policy does not cover
death due to heart attack. According to him, heart attack is a natural
cause of death and cannot be termed as an accident under the policy.
13. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the judgment of the
Dilwale 4 68-WP-393-21.odt
Hon'ble Apex Court in "Smt. Alka Shukla v. Life Insurance Corporation of
India" in Civil Appeal No. 3413 of 2019, particularly paragraph no. 12
thereof which is reproduced as under:-
"In the present case, there is no evidence to show that any bodily
injuries were suffered due to the fall from the motorcycle or that
they led to the assured suffering a heart attack. There is no evidence
to show that the accident took place as a result of any outward,
violent and visible means. The assured died as a result of a heart
attack which was not attributable to the accident".
[
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal
of the record, there is no dispute that as per the post-mortem report, the
husband of the petitioner died due to heart attack. However, the material
on record indicates that he had driven the vehicle from Nashik to Beed
and was on duty at the relevant time.
15. The question that arises for consideration is whether a heart attack
suffered during the course of employment, allegedly due to stress and
strain of duty, can be treated as an "accident" within the meaning of the
insurance policy.
16. In this context, I am guided by the observations of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Smt. Dariyao Kanwar (supra), wherein in paragraphs 10 to
13 it has been observed thus :
10. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner, the
Insurance Company preferred an appeal before the High Court. The
arguments raised by the Insurance Company were that there is no
material on record to suggest that the death of Sumer Singh occurred
due to strain and stress during employment. In case, the deceased
employee was already suffering from any existing disease and died on
account of that, it cannot be said to be a case of death during the course
of employment. The view of the High Court was that there is no
Dilwale 5 68-WP-393-21.odt
relationship between the death and the work being done by the
deceased. Hence, the order of the Commissioner was found to be
unsustainable.
11. The judgment of this Court in Param Pal Singh case relied upon by
the counsel for the appellants, comes to their rescue. In that case, the
deceased was a truck driver. While on duty, he suddenly suffered health
setback and parked his vehicle on roadside hotel. After parking the
vehicle, he fainted and was taken to the hospital. He was declared
brought dead. An application was filed by the dependants of the
deceased for claiming compensation under the 1923 Act. The
Commissioner accepted the claim whereas the order passed by the
Commissioner was set aside by the High Court. The dependants filed an
appeal before this Court. It is noticed in the aforesaid judgment that
additional premium was paid for coverage of compensation payable
under the 1923 Act.
12. This Court accepted the appeal filed by the dependants of the
deceased and found that even if the death had not occurred on account
of any accident but the driver was consistently driving the vehicle, there
is every reason to assume that long spells of driving was a material
contributory factor, if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected
death at a young age. Such an untoward mishap can reasonably be
described as an accident, only attributable to the nature of employment.
In the aforesaid judgment , the employee was 45 years of age. It squarely
covers the case of the appellants.
13. The relevant paragraphs of the decision are extracted below: (Param
Pal Singh case, SCC p. 424, paras 29-30)
"29. Applying the various principles laid down in the above decisions to
the facts of this case, we can validly conclude that there was causal
connection to the death of the deceased with that of his employment as a
truck driver. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a 45-year-old driver
meets with his unexpected death, may be due to heart failure while
driving the vehicle from Delhi to a distant place called Nimiaghat near
Jharkhand which is about 1152 km away from Delhi, would have
definitely undergone grave strain and stress due to such long distance
driving. The deceased being a professional heavy vehicle driver when
undertakes the job of such driving as his regular avocation it can be
safely held that such constant driving of heavy vehicle, being dependent
solely upon his physical and mental resources and endurance, there was
every reason to assume that the vocation of driving was a material
contributory factor if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected
death to occur which in all fairness should be held to be an untoward
mishap in his lifespan. Such an "untoward mishap" can therefore be
reasonably described as an "accident" as having been caused solely
attributable to the nature of employment indulged in with his employer
which was in the course of such employer's trade or business.
30.... In such circumstances, we are convinced that the conclusion of the
Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation that the death of the
deceased was in an accident arising out of and in the course of his
employment with the second respondent was perfectly justified and the
conclusion to the contrary reached by the learned Judge of the High
Court in the order® impugned in this appeal deserves to be set aside."
(emphasis in original and supplied)"
Dilwale 6 68-WP-393-21.odt
17. Therefore, considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Smt. Dariyao Kanwar (supra), it is evident that in similar facts,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where the deceased was engaged in
the vocation of driving a heavy vehicle, such work inherently involves
continuous mental alertness, physical endurance and strain. If a driver,
while performing his regular avocation, suffers a fatal cardiac event
attributable to the stress and strain of employment, the same cannot be
termed as a purely natural death divorced from employment.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that when death occurs in the
course of employment and there exists a reasonable nexus between the
nature of duties and the cause of death, such an event can be described
as an "accident" within the meaning of the policy. The unexpected
mishap, though medically described as a heart attack, if precipitated by
work-related stress or exertion, would fall within the ambit of accidental
death arising out of and in the course of employment.
19. In view of the aforesaid observations, the principle laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case,
where the deceased was on duty and had driven the vehicle from Nashik
to Beed prior to the incident.
20. Considering the fact that under the policy, personal accident
coverage of the driver was provided, and in view of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Dariyao Kanwar (supra), I am inclined to
Dilwale 7 68-WP-393-21.odt
allow the writ petition.
21. The impugned order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat,
therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The application filed by the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adn alat stands allowed. (iv) The respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to
the petitioner along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application till its realization.
(v) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE