Authority: High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital

Order Date: 17 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Appeal from Order No.184 of 2025 (dated 28 February 2025) in ECA Case No. 07 of 2021, Smt. Mithilesh & others Vs. Jeet Singh & another, issued by the Employees Compensation Commissioner, Labour Court Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar.
  • Parties: Appellant – United India Insurance Company (through Manager, In‑charge T.P. Hub, Divisional Office, Aish Bagh Kaladhungi Road, Haldwani, Distt. Nainital). Respondents – Smt. Mithilesh (wife of the deceased) and other claimants, and respondent No. 8 (owner of the truck).
  • Claim: Under the Employees Compensation Act, 2023, claimants sought compensation for the death of driver Kamal Singh, employed by respondent No. 8 as driver of truck registration UK18CA3320. Incident occurred on 30 March 2021 when the driver fell from the truck, later suffered a cardiac arrest after taking food, and died en route to hospital.
  • Appellant’s objections: No prior notice of the incident, lack of solid evidence, police report indicating death due to deterioration after food, and other objections.
  • Respondent No. 8’s objections: Same narrative of food‑related deterioration; death occurred at Ranchi Hospital.
  • Evidence presented: Examination of Smt. Mithilesh (wife of the deceased), DW1 Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey (inquiry officer), and documentary evidence filed by both sides.
  • Issues framed (four):

1. Whether death was due to fall from the truck.

2. Whether death was due to cardiac arrest after food.

3. Whether an employer‑employee relationship existed between the deceased and respondent No. 8.

4. Quantum of compensation.

  • Findings of the lower tribunal (Employees Compensation Commissioner): Death not caused by fall but by cardiac arrest after food; death occurred in the course of employment; employer‑employee relationship existed; compensation calculated at Rs 15,59,850 with interest.
  • Appeal raised a substantial question of law: Whether the deceased died out of the employment.
  • Appellant’s argument: Cited Supreme Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali (2007) emphasizing need for proof of stress‑induced heart attack; argued no evidence linking death to employment; claimed death was natural.
  • Respondents’ argument: Relied on Poonam Devi case and the doctrine of notional extension, asserting that actions necessary for a driver (including taking food) are incidental to employment.
  • Court’s analysis: Accepted that death occurred during the course of employment; applied the notional extension principle; held that taking food was necessary to continue duties and thus incidental to employment. Cited Poonam Devi and other precedents supporting the view that a driver’s actions to sustain himself while performing duties are within the scope of employment.
  • Final ruling: No interference with the impugned judgment; appeal dismissed; compensation award of Rs 15,59,850 remains unchanged.

Final Outcome

The High Court dismissed United India Insurance’s appeal, upholding the order directing payment of Rs 15,59,850 compensation to the claimants; the compensation stands unchanged.

Topics: Employees Compensation, Court Judgment