Dismissed¶39

Ushadevi Karansingh Tak and Ors. v. Santosh Rajaram Sharma and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2026FA/1343/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employees Compensation Act S.3 / S.30 appeal, Bombay HC FA No.1343 of 2025 (decided 21-01-2026, Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.), against Commissioner's rejection of death compensation for truck driver Karansingh Tak who died at night on 10-07-2018 at Suratgarh after Mumbai-Suratgarh delivery drive; cardiac arrest vs natural death; medical/postmortem/viscera/pathology evidence ruled out cardiac cause; no nexus death-to-employment; no accident under S.3; no perversity in trial court findings; no substantial question of law; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Existence of the employer-employee relationship is not disputed. ¶26

Ushadevi Karansingh Tak and Ors. vs Santosh Rajaram Sharma and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the death of the deceased was caused by reason of an accident arising during the course of his employment with opposite party No. 1, so as to attract liability under Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

Existence of the employer-employee relationship is not disputed.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Medical reports produced before the Trial Court ruled out any possibility of the death being caused by a cardiac problem or heart attack; there was no definite medico-legal cause of death, and no evidence supported the deposition of death by cardiac arrest/heart attack.

¶32

Key takeaways

The record indicates the death of the deceased was a natural death; there is no material establishing any nexus between the death and the deceased's employment as a driver, and the Applicants failed to bring evidence that the death occurred by reason of continuous driving; consequently the death was not caused by an accident within the meaning of Section 3.ratio¶32
The Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence on the basis of the material on record and no perversity was demonstrated in its findings.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction — First Appeal No. 1343 of 2025 (Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.; decided 21 January 2026): Appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act against the Commissioner for Employees Compensation's judgment dated 15th February, 2025 rejecting compensation for the death of Karansingh Tak, a driver of Respondent No. 1. The deceased drove from Mumbai to Suratgarh (about 1300 km, as urged by counsel), parked after unloading and died during the night of 10th July, 2018; the claim pleaded death from strain and stress of duty, later deposed as cardiac arrest. HELD: employer-employee relationship undisputed; postmortem, viscera examination, pathology report and doctor's opinion ruled out heart attack or any cardiac cause, with no definite medico-legal cause of death; death was natural and no nexus was established between the death and employment as a driver; hence no 'accident' under Section 3 of the Act; no perversity in the Trial Court's appreciation of evidence; no substantial question of law arises; Appeal dismissed.

¶1

43-fa-1343-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.1343 OF 2025

¶4

Ushadevi Karansingh Tak and Ors. ...Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

Santosh Rajaram Sharma and Another ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Jitendra Gor, for the Appellants.

¶8

——————

¶9

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2026

¶10

ORAL ORDER :

¶11

1. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellants.

¶12

2. The first Appeal challenges the judgment dated 15^th February, 2025 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation rejecting the Application seeking compensation on account of the death of one Karansingh Tak who was working as driver with Respondent No. 1.

¶13

3. The case of the Applicants is that the deceased was working as driver and on 8^th July, 2018, the deceased loaded his vehicle with goods and left for Suratgarh, Rajasthan for delivery of the goods. On 10^th July, 2018, the deceased reached Suratgarh and after unloading the goods, he parked his vehicle and due to continuous driving, he was taking rest

¶14

1 of 5

¶15

Vishal Parekar

¶16

43-fa-1343-2025.doc

¶17

and passed away during night. The application came to be filed contending that due to strain and stress of duty, the deceased has expired.

¶18

4. The opposite party No. 1 filed the written statement admitting the employer employee relationship, the journey of the deceased from Mumbai to Suratgarh for delivery of the goods as also the death of the deceased. The opposite party No. 2 Insurance Company denied the existence of employer employee relationship and any liability to pay compensation.

¶19

5. The Trial Court framed necessary issues and as far as employer employee relationship is concerned answered the same in the affirmative. In so far as the issue as regards the accidental death of the deceased, the trial Court held that the factum of the death is proved but accident is not proved. The compensation came to be denied and hence the present Appeal.

¶20

6. Mr. Gor, learned counsel for the Appellant, submits that the death of the deceased has taken place by reason of continuous driving from Mumbai to Suratgarh which was a distance of 1300 km. He would further submit that the death was caused due to cardiac arrest or sudden collapse resulting from occupational stress and fatigue which constitutes an “accident” under section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act. He would further submit that it is not necessary

¶21

2 of 5

¶22

Vishal Parekar

¶23

43-fa-1343-2025.doc

¶24

that the death be a result from an external injury and that the Commissioner has erroneously rejected the application leading to perversity of finding.

¶25

7. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

¶26

8. In so far as existence of employer employee relationship is concerned, the same is not disputed. The only issue which arise for consideration is whether death was caused by reason of accident arising during the course of employment of the deceased with the opposite party No. 1.

¶27

9. Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act fixes the liability of payment of compensation in event of personal injury caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Trial Court has taken into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence in the form of medical reports produced on record. It noted that in the claim application it is not mentioned that the death of the deceased has taken place due to heart attack whereas the deposition was that the deceased was died due to cardiac arrest. The Trial Court noted that the case put up during evidence has been substantially improved from the case set out in the application. The Trial Court further considered the judicial decisions as to whether cardiac arrest/ heart attack is an accident within the meaning of section 3 of the Act. The Trial Court has rightly noted that for heart attack to

¶28

3 of 5

¶29

Vishal Parekar

¶30

43-fa-1343-2025.doc

¶31

be considered an accident, there must be connection established between the death of the deceased and his employment as a truck driver. Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court noted that there is nothing on record to show that the death of the deceased was due to heart attack and to show any nexus between the death and the job of the deceased as driver.

¶32

10. Before the Trial Court, the medical reports were produced which ruled out any possibility of the death of the deceased being caused due to any cardiac problem or heart attack. There was no definite medico legal cause of the death and it was established from the postmortem report, viscera examination report, report of pathology and opinion of the Doctor that the death was not due to heart attack or any cardiac issue. The record indicates that the death of the deceased was a natural death and there is no material to establish nexus between the death of deceased and the employment of deceased as a driver. It was necessary for Applicants to bring evidence to demonstrate that the death took place by reason of continues driving, which is missing in present case. There is also no evidence to support the deposition that death was caused due to cardiac arrest heart attack. On the contrary, the medical records prove otherwise.

¶33

11. The Trial Court has appreciated the evidence on the basis of material on record and there is no perversity demonstrated in the

¶34

4 of 5

¶35

Vishal Parekar

¶36

43-fa-1343-2025.doc

¶37

findings of the trial Court. The provisions of Section 30 of the Act provides the remedy of an Appeal only on a substantial question of law.

¶38

12. Considering the evidence which has come on record, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and there is no perversity demonstrated. Hence, no substantial question of law arises in the present case.

¶39

13. The Appeal stands dismissed.

¶40

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶41

5 of 5

¶42

Vishal Parekar

Ushadevi Karansingh Tak and Ors. v. Santosh Rajaram Sharma and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ushadevi Karansingh Tak and Ors. v. Santosh Rajaram Sharma and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Virendra Vasant Kanekar vs Rukmini Mahadev Wake

Money Magnum Nest Private Limited vs the Assistant Assessor and Collector and Taxes E Ward

Bholenath Medical Stores vs Attaullah Having Its Proprietorship Concern as Adarsh Perfumery Udyog

Bisleri International Private Limited vs Dinesh Kumar Jhanwar trading as Sangam Beverages and Water Supply

Grindwell Norton Limited vs Preetham Reddy

Vinaykumar Digambar Patkar vs Anil Ganesh Bhagat and Ors.