Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

"Supreme Court Reinstates Compensation Award, Says 'Death Had Causal Connection to Employment'"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India reinstated the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner's award of ₹3,26,140 with 12% p.a. interest to the legal heirs of Sumer Singh, a driver who died while on duty. The Court set aside the High Court's reversal of the award, stating that the "death had a causal connection to employment."

The bench, comprising Justices HIMA KOHLI and RAJESH BINDAL, delivered the judgment on August 23, 2023. The case revolved around the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, and questioned whether the death of an employee while on duty could be considered as arising out of employment.

The legal representatives of the deceased had filed an appeal against the High Court's decision, which had overturned the Commissioner's award. The Supreme Court found merit in the appeal and stated, "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."

The Court also rejected the argument of the Insurance Company, which contended that the death did not arise out of employment. The Court noted that an "additional premium was paid to cover such eventualities under the 1923 Act."

The judgment cited previous cases like Param Pal Singh Through Father v. National Insurance Co. & Anr., and Northeast Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. v. Sujatha, to support its decision.

The ruling is seen as a significant step in clarifying the scope of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, particularly in cases involving the death of employees while on duty.

Date of Decision: August 23, 2023

Smt. Dariyao Kanwar & ors. vs M/s  United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/23-Aug-2023_Dariyao_Kanwar_Vs_United_india_Insurance.pdf"]

Latest Legal News