Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Tmt. P. Shanthi vs Branch Manager M/S. United India … on 19 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3605 OF 2026
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 11914 of 2023]
TMT. P. SHANTHI & ANR. ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BRANCH MANAGER M/S …RESPONDENT(S)
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED &
ORS.
ORDER
1. Leave Granted.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants
challenging the judgment dated 21.07.2022 (hereinafter referred to as
“Impugned Order”) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras
(hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”) in C.M.A. No. 399 of 2022
and C.M.P. No. 2782 of 2022 wherein the High Court allowed the
appeal, and set aside the order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the
Commissioner for Employees Compensation (Joint Commissioner of
Labour-I), Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “Commissioner”) in E.C.
Signature Not Verified
Case No. 220 of 2013, thereby granting a total compensation of
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2026.04.06
17:27:16 IST
Reason:
₹2,37,320/- to the Appellants.
1
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The deceased, K. Paramasivan was employed by Respondent No.
3 for driving a heavy vehicle container lorry which transports goods
from one place to another. On 06.08.2007, the deceased was driving a
16 wheel container lorry bearing registration no. TN09 AD 4521, from
Chennai to Melvisharam to unload leather. At about 6.30 PM he
reached M.A.K.H. and sons company, Ranipettai to unload and get a
receipt of the same, when he suffered a cardiac arrest and died.
4. A claim petition bearing E.C. Case No. 220 of 2013, was filed by
Raani, the wife of the deceased (herein after referred to as “original
claimant”) before the Commissioner, seeking compensation of
₹5,00,000/-. During the pendency of the claim petition, the Original
Claimant died on 07.03.2016. Later, Appellants and Respondent No. 2
were impleaded as the legal representatives of the original claimant.
AWARD PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER
5. The commissioner after considering the contentions raised by
both the parties, passed an order dated 19.03.2021 and held that
there existed an employer-employee relationship between Respondent
No. 3 and the deceased, and the death was caused in the course of
employment. In addition to this, the commissioner noted that the
2
death of the deceased was due to stress and strain of the nature of
work. The Commissioner, relying upon the judgment of Kerala High
Court passed in Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation vs.
Mohanan, reported as (1988) SCC OnLine Ker 16, and the judgment
of Orissa High Court passed in National Insurance Company, Ltd.
vs. Ranjulala Bhuyan and Anr, reported as 1996 ACJ 716, held that
the Appellants and Respondent No. 2 were entitled to claim
compensation.
6. Furthermore, the commissioner held that the vehicle of
Respondent No. 3 was duly insured with Respondent No. 1 and the
date of death was within the policy period. Consequently, Respondent
No. 1 was directed to pay a total sum of ₹2,37,320/- (inclusive of
administrative expenses of ₹2500/-) as compensation under Section
4A(3)(a) of Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (herein after referred
to as “the Act”) along with an interest @12% p.a.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT
7. Aggrieved, by the order passed by commissioner in E.C. Case 220
of 2013, Respondent No. 1 preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
bearing C.M.A. No. 399 of 2022 before the High Court. The High Court
while considering the contention of maintainability of the claim
petition by the Appellants, discussed the definition of “dependant” as
3
defined under Section 2(d) of the Act. The High Court held that the
Appellants being married daughters and the Respondent No. 2 being
major son do not fall within the definition of dependant and in terms
of Section 22(1A) of the Act a claim petition by them is not
maintainable.
8. Furthermore, the High Court while considering the question
whether the death was on account of stress and strain caused due to
work, relied on the principles set out in the judgment passed by this
Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar
Maruti Garvali and Anr., reported as (2007) 11 SCC 668, and held
that there is no proof to show that the deceased suffered cardiac arrest
because of the stress and strain of the work. Additionally, the High
Court noted contradictions between the statement of original claimant
and the FIR of the incident lodged by the eyewitness, wherein it was
stated that the deceased had not died while driving the container
lorry, instead he died when he was going to collect the receipt after
unloading the goods.
9. Consequently, the High Court vide its judgment dated
21.07.2022 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the
Commissioner.
4
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
10. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants contended that
the deceased died on 06.08.2007 due to an injury caused out of and in
the course of his employment. In addition to this, driving a 16-wheeler
heavy container lorry is a crucial and stressful job that creates high
tension and blood pressure, which resulted in his fatal heart attack.
Further, the learned counsel for Appellants contended that the
definition of “unmarried daughters” is narrow and does not explain the
status of divorcees or women living with a partner without marriage.
They also submitted that once married, the stability of married life can
be questionable, and the mere existence of a marriage or surviving
parents should not be the sole rating scale for dependency.
11. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 contended that the
appellants being the married daughters of the deceased does not come
within the ambit of term “dependants” as defined under Section 2(d) of
the Act. Further, the learned counsel relying on the judgment of
Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti (supra), contended that there
was no evidence demonstrating that the deceased was subjected to
sudden stressful conditions during his duties that brought on the
cardiac arrest, and a heart attack during the course of employment
5
does not automatically amount to an accident without a crucial nexus
with employment being proved.
12. Having considered the rival submissions made at the bar and the
materials on the record, the controversy in the present appeal can be
crystalized on two counts:
a. Whether the married daughters and major sons have the locus
standi to pursue the claim for compensation as legal heirs after the
death of the original claimant (widow)?
b. Whether the death of the deceased driver by cardiac arrest arose
out of and in the course of his employment?
ANALYSIS
13. Before delving into the specific issues, it is imperative to remind
ourselves of the nature and object of the Employees’ Compensation
Act, 1923. As observed by this Court in Jaya Biswal & Others vs.
Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company
Limited & Another, reported as (2016) 11 SCC 201, the Act is a
social welfare legislation providing for compensation to people who
sustain bodily injuries or get killed. The grant of compensation must
be expeditious, and procedural technicalities cannot be allowed to
defeat the just purpose of the Act. The Courts, while construing such
social welfare legislations, are duty-bound to adopt a beneficial rule of
6
construction which fulfills the policy of the legislation favorable to
those in whose interest the Act has been passed. Judicial discipline
demands that the words of a remedial statute be construed to secure
the relief contemplated and not to deny it to the intended class.
ISSUE I
14. The High Court and the respondents have fundamentally
misdirected themselves in law. The initial claim was instituted by Tmt.
Rani, the widow of the deceased, who undeniably qualified as a
“dependant” under Section 2(d)(i) of the Act at the time of her
husband’s death and after her death the Appellants were impleaded as
her Legal Representative in the claim petition. This Court in the case
of Shobha And Ors. vs. Chairman, Vithalrao Shinde Sahakari
Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. And Ors., reported as (2022) 13 SCC 172,
has held that as per Section 4A(1) of the Act, compensation payable
under Section 4 of the Act is required to be paid as soon as it falls
due. In cases of death of an employee arising out of and in the course
of employment, the compensation becomes due immediately upon
such death. Additionally, as held in Oriental Insurance Company
Limited vs. Kahlon And Another, reported as (2022) 13 SCC 494,
even after the death of the injured claimant, the claim petition does
not abate, and the right to sue survives to the heirs and legal
representatives insofar as the loss to the estate is concerned. Thus,
7
applying these legal principles to the facts of our present case, the
claim petition is maintainable by, if continued, the legal
representatives after the death of the original claimant.
15. Furthermore, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Birender,
reported as (2020) 11 SCC 356, and later reiterated in the case of
Jitender Kumar & Anr. vs. Sanjay Prasad & Ors. in Civil Appeal
No. 7199 of 2025, it was clarified that major married and earning
children are considered as legal representatives, and have a right to
apply for compensation. The term ‘legal representative’ is of wide
amplitude and includes anyone who inherits the estate of the
deceased, regardless of their financial dependency at the time of
death. Therefore, the High Court erred in invalidating the claim based
on the marital status of the heirs who merely inherited a pending,
validly instituted action.
Issue II
16. The High Court, relying on Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti
(supra), concluded that a heart attack does not automatically presume
an accident and that since the FIR indicated the deceased had stepped
out of the lorry to get a receipt, there was no proof of stress or strain
causing the death. We find this reasoning to be flawed and contrary to
the settled jurisprudence regarding the employment of heavy vehicle
8
drivers. The case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti (supra) is
clearly distinguishable on facts as the deceased workmen was a
cleaner in a vehicle. It must also be noted that in the said case there
were no specific allegations by the claimants to the effect that the
deceased died by reason of any strain of work, whereas in the present
case, there were clear pleading stating that the nature of employment
i.e. driving a 16 wheeler container, of the deceased required more
attention and caused strain. In addition to this the High Court has
misapplied the factors to be established to prove that the accident has
taken place, which has been properly applied by this court in Param
Pal Singh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported as (2013) 3
SCC 409, wherein this Court recognized that the very nature of the
job of a professional driver, who is required to drive a heavy vehicle for
long distances, is such that it causes a great deal of stress and strain.
If the deceased was performing his duties and the stress of driving
contributed to or accelerated his death, it must be considered an
accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The relevant
extract of the case is as follows:
25. In a recent decision of this Court in Shakuntala
Chandrakant Shreshti, the factors to be established to prove
that an accident has taken place have been culled out and
stated as under in para 26: (SCC p. 677)
“26. In a case of this nature to prove that accident
has taken place, factors which would have to be
established, inter alia, are:
(1) stress and strain arising during the course of
9
employment,
(2) nature of employment,
(3) injury aggravated due to stress and strain.”XXX
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.
(emphasis supplied)
17. Furthermore, the High Court’s reliance on the fact that the
deceased was not physically steering the vehicle at the exact moment
of his cardiac arrest ignores the theory of “Notional Extension”.
Considering the theory of notional extension as discussed in the
judgment of Poonam Devi and Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
reported as (2020) 4 SCC 55, and the facts of the present case is that
if a driver is away from home due to his duties, he is deemed to be “on
duty”. In the present case, the deceased had alighted the vehicle solely
10
to obtain a delivery receipt for the goods he had transported for his
employer. He was at the premises strictly for the purpose of his
employment. The nexus between his work and his presence at the
location is unequivocally established.
CONCLUSION
18. In view of the aforesaid, we hold that:
i. The Appellants, being the legal representatives of the
original claimant (widow), are fully entitled to inherit and
pursue the claim for compensation.
ii. The death of the deceased due to cardiac arrest while
obtaining a delivery receipt during a transit trip falls
squarely within the scope of an accident arising out of and
in the course of employment.
19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and
order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the High Court in C.M.A. No. 399 of
2022 is hereby set aside. The order of the Commissioner for
Employees’ Compensation dated 19.03.2021 is restored. The
Respondent Insurance Company is directed to release the
compensation amount to the appellants, along with interest as
originally awarded.
11
20. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………., J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
………………………., J.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 19, 2026.
12
ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.15 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11914/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-07-2022
in CMA No. 399/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras]
TMT. P. SHANTHI & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BRANCH MANAGER M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 85055/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 19-03-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOIFor Petitioner(s) :
Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv.
Mrs. C Rubavathi, Adv.
Mr. Ch. Leela Sarveswar, Adv.
Mr. K Gopinath, Adv.
Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gola, Adv.
Mr. Anshul Mehral, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ravinder Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RLeave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application shall also stand disposed of.
(ANITA MALHOTRA) (MANOJ KUMAR)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file.)
13
