1 FAO-238-2000 WITHXOBJC-14-CII-2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-238-2000 with XOBJC-14-CII-2001 1 The date when the judgment was reserved 05.08.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 02.09.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 03.09.2026 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof. Not applicable G.M. HARYANA ROADWAYS AND ANOTHER …Appellants Vs. ROSHANI DEVI AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Raj Partap Singh Brar, AAG, Haryana. Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate for the respondent. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. 1. By way of present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act'), challenge has been laid to the award dated 15.09.1998 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Act, at Rohtak, whereby compensation of Rs.75,824/- along with interest and penalty was awarded in favour of the respondents-claimants on account of death of Joginder Singh, while in the course of his employment as a driver with Haryana Roadways. 2. Briefly stating, the deceased was working as a driver with the appellants. On 24.01.1994, while driving bus bearing registration No.HR- TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.09.03 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 FAO-238-2000 WITHXOBJC-14-CII-2001 29-0251 from Jagadhari to Palwal and while on duty, he suffered a severe heart attack and died at the spot. The claimants, being his widow and minor children/dependants, accordingly filed the claim petition. 3. The learned Commissioner, on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the deceased suffered the fatal heart attack while on duty and that the death arose out of and in the course of his employment. Compensation of Rs.75,824/- was thereafter assessed, besides interest @ 6% per annum and penalty. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Commissioner erred in holding that the death of Joginder Singh, who admittedly died due to a heart attack, arose out of and in the course of his employment. It was contended that the mere fact that the deceased was on duty or travelling on the route assigned to him would not, by itself, establish any causal nexus between his employment and the cardiac attack suffered by him. He further submitted that the deceased did not suffer any external injury or accident and, in fact, died a natural death due to a heart ailment. Learned counsel further submitted that the deceased was not actually driving the vehicle at the relevant time and, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Commissioner was contrary to the evidence on record. As regards quantum, learned counsel submitted that the compensation of Rs.75,824/- awarded by the learned Commissioner was also not in accordance with the statutory formula and was on the higher side. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants submitted that the deceased was admittedly employed as a driver with Haryana Roadways and suffered a fatal heart attack while discharging his duty and driving the bus on the route TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.09.03 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 FAO-238-2000 WITHXOBJC-14-CII-2001 assigned to him. It was argued that the expression "arising out of and in the course of employment" has to be construed liberally keeping in view the beneficial and social-welfare object of the Act. According to learned counsel, the nature of the deceased's employment, namely, driving a passenger bus on a long route, involved physical and mental strain, which had a direct nexus with the cardiac episode resulting in his death. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Commissioner wrongly assessed the age of the deceased as 30 years and also restricted his wages to Rs.1,000/- despite the claimants having pleaded monthly wages of Rs.3,000/-. The compensation, therefore, deserved to be enhanced by applying the relevant factor corresponding to the actual age of the deceased and the wages admissible under the Act. Learned counsel also seeks interest and appropriate penalty in accordance with the statutory provisions. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. 7. In the present case, the relationship of employer and employee is not in dispute. The deceased was admittedly employed as a driver with the appellants and the incident occurred while he was on duty and travelling on the assigned route. The contention that the deceased was not driving the bus at the relevant time is contrary to the factual position noticed by the learned Commissioner and the material available on record. The stray observation in the award to the contrary cannot displace the consistent finding that the deceased suffered the fatal heart attack while performing his duty as a driver. The question as to whether a death caused by heart attack can constitute an accident arising out of and in the course of employment is no longer res integra. In Mackinnon Mackenzie TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.09.03 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 FAO-238-2000 WITHXOBJC-14-CII-2001 & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak, AIR 1970 SC 1906, it was held that there has to be a causal connection between the employment and the death and that where the employment contributes to or accelerates the death, the same would arise out of employment. Likewise, in Mst. Param Pal Singh through Father v. M/s National Insurance Co. & another, (2013) 3 SCC 409, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the case of a professional heavy vehicle driver who suffered a fatal cardiac event during driving, held that the constant driving of a heavy vehicle, dependent upon the driver's physical and mental resources and endurance, could be a material contributory factor which accelerated the unexpected death. The Court consequently found a causal connection between the death and employment. 7.1 In the present case, the deceased was a professional driver and suffered the fatal cardiac attack while on duty and operating the vehicle on a regular passenger route. The nature of such employment necessarily involves sustained physical and mental exertion, attention and responsibility. In these circumstances, the finding recorded by the learned Commissioner that the death arose out of and in the course of employment cannot be said to be perverse or based upon no evidence. The same, therefore, calls for no interference. 8. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned Commissioner has taken the monthly wages of the deceased as Rs.1,000/-, though his widow claimed that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Since the accident took place on 24.01.1994, the compensation has to be determined with reference to the statutory provisions as they stood on the date of accident. At that point of time, for the purposes of Section 4(1)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the monthly TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.09.03 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 FAO-238-2000 WITHXOBJC-14-CII-2001 wages could not be taken beyond the prescribed statutory ceiling of Rs.1,000/-. The deceased was 38 years of age at the time of the accident. Under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, in a case of death, the compensation is to be calculated at 50% of the monthly wages multiplied by the relevant factor specified in Schedule IV. For a workman aged 38 years, the relevant factor is 189.56. Accordingly, the compensation payable works out as under: Rs. 1,000 x 50% x 189.56 = Rs. 94,780/-. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.94,780/-. To this extent, the award passed by the learned Commissioner, whereby compensation of Rs.75,824/- was granted, is liable to be modified. The cross-objections filed by the claimants, insofar as they seek enhancement of the principal compensation, are thus liable to be allowed to the aforesaid extent. 9. Coming to the question of interest, the learned Commissioner has awarded interest @ 6% per annum on the compensation amount from 24.02.1994 till the date of the award. The same, however, cannot be sustained to the extent that interest has not been granted from the date of accident. The issue is no longer res integra. In P. Meenaraj v. P. Adigurusamy & another, Civil Appeal No.209 of 2022, decided on 06.01.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, specifically held that the statutory period of 30 days does not put a moratorium on the liability to pay interest. It was further held that there was no reason for denying interest for the said period and that the claimant would be entitled to interest from the date of accident. Relevant paras thereof is reproduced hereunder:- TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.09.03 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 FAO-238-2000 WITHXOBJC-14-CII-2001 “10. As regards the date of commencement of the liability of interest, the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be right that even in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra), this Court has not laid down the law that the interest would be payable only 30 days after the accident. In our view too, the said statutory period of 30 days does not put a moratorium over the liability of interest. Such interest is related with the amount of compensation receivable by the claimant and there appears no reason for not allowing interest for 30 days from the date of accident. In fact, in the referred decisions too, this Court has allowed interest from the date of accident. That being the position, the questioned part of the order of the High Court calls for interference and the same is modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to interest from the date of accident. 11. The appeal is allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above.” 9.1 The aforesaid principle squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The deceased Joginder Singh died on 24.01.1994 while on duty and the compensation payable to his dependants remained unpaid. Consequently, the respondents-claimants are entitled to interest on the compensation amount from the date of accident itself, i.e. 24.01.1994, and not from 24.02.1994 as directed by the learned Commissioner. 9.2 As regards the rate of interest, since the accident in the present case occurred on 24.01.1994, the rate applicable to the claim has to be determined with reference to the statutory position prevailing on the date of accident. The subsequent amendment enhancing the statutory rate of interest cannot be applied retrospectively. Accordingly, the claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.94,780/- from 24.01.1994 till the date of actual realization. 9.3 Furthermore, insofar as the imposition of penalty is concerned, the learned Commissioner levied penalty @10% of the compensation amount. Since, the compensation is being enhanced to Rs.94,780/-, the penalty would ordinarily be calculated @10% thereof. However, keeping in view the fact that the accident occurred on 20.01.1994, whereas the award came to be passed only on 15.09.1998, and no compensation was TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.09.03 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 FAO-238-2000 WITHXOBJC-14-CII-2001 deposited during the intervening period of nearly four years, this Courts deems it appropriate to enhance the penalty to 20% of the compensation amount. Accordingly, as regards penalty, is quantified at Rs.18,956/-. 10. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed. The cross-objections filed by respondents No.1 to 5 are partly allowed. The award dated 15.09.1998 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Rohtak, is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appellants shall deposit the entire amount payable under the modified award before the learned Commissioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which the respondents-claimants shall be at liberty to seek execution thereof in accordance with law. 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. September 02, 2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.09.03 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document