1 FAO-5347-2015 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5347-2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.07.2026 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. …Appellant Vs. PROMILA DEVI AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for appellant-Insurance Company. Mr. Naveen Sharma Moudgil, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the order dated 17.03.2015 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, Mohali (SAS Nagar), whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,88,240/- with interest @ 9% per annum and conditional interest @ 12% per annum on account of death of Shingara Singh was awarded. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Ld. Commissioner has failed to appreciate the evidence on record to the fact that the deceased was not at the place of work when he died, thus the accident did not occur during the course of employment. He further submits that it was not proved by the claimants that the deceased died due to over work, exertion, and consequently the order may be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Commissioner rightly held that the deceased died during the course of and arising out of his employment after appreciating the oral TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.10 15:15 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 FAO-5347-2015 (O&M) and documentary evidence on record. She further submits that the appellant failed to produce any cogent evidence to disprove the claim or establish that the deceased was not on duty or that the death had no nexus with his employment, therefore, he prays the appeal being devoid of merits be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book of the case. 5. The contention raised by the appellant is that the deceased was not at the place of work and was not on duty when he died; therefore, his death did not arise “out of and during the course of employment.” The aforesaid submission does not merit acceptance. 6. The learned Commissioner, upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, recorded a categorical finding that the deceased was an employee of respondent No. 1 and that his death occurred during the course of his employment. Such finding is essentially a finding of fact based upon the evidence available on record. It is well settled that in an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, interference by the High Court is permissible only where a substantial question of law arises. The High Court does not act as a court of first appeal to reassess or reappreciate the evidence merely because another view is possible. Unless the findings recorded by the Commissioner are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to the settled principles of law, the same do not call for interference. TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.10 15:15 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 FAO-5347-2015 (O&M) 7. Likewise, the argument that the claimants failed to establish that the deceased died due to overwork or excessive exertion cannot be accepted. Once the evidence establishes that the death occurred while the employee was discharging his duties and there exists a causal connection between the employment and the death, compensation under the Act cannot be denied merely because there is no direct medical evidence specifically attributing the death to overexertion. The expression "arising out of and in the course of employment" has consistently received a liberal interpretation to advance the beneficial object of the legislation. 7.1 The legal position on this aspect now stands authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Dariyao Kanwar and others vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another reported as 2023 AIR (Supreme Court) 4161, wherein it has been held that if the employment has a causal or incidental connection with the death or injury and the employee dies while engaged in duties connected with his employment, the accident would be deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. The beneficial provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act are required to receive a purposive interpretation so as to extend protection to the dependants of the deceased employee. Relevant para thereof is reproduced hereunder:- “10. This Court accepted the appeal filed by the dependents 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. The relevant paras of the decision are extracted below: TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.10 15:15 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 FAO-5347-2015 (O&M) "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 supplied) 7.2 The facts of the present case are fully covered by the aforesaid principle. The learned Commissioner has rightly concluded, on appreciation of the evidence, that the deceased died during the course of his employment. The appellant has failed to point out any perversity, misreading of evidence, or application of an incorrect legal principle which would justify interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Act. 8. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. The findings recorded by the learned Commissioner are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and are in consonance with the settled principles governing claims under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. The award granting compensation of ₹7,88,240/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, apportioned between TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.10 15:15 I agree to specified portions of this document 5 FAO-5347-2015 (O&M) the dependants in the ratio determined by the Commissioner, does not warrant any interference. 9. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. July 3, 2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.10 15:15 I agree to specified portions of this document