The Uttarakhand High Court has upheld a labour court order awarding around Rs 16 lakh, including interest, to the family of a 40-year-old truck driver who died of cardiac arrest after stopping to have a meal while driving from Uttar Pradesh to Jharkhand, as per a TOI report.
The court held that the driver's death was "sufficiently connected with his employment" and ruled that having food was necessary to maintain his health during prolonged driving duties. The judgment provides relief to the family of Kamal Singh under the Employees’ Compensation Act.
Singh died on March 3, 2021. He was survived by his wife Mithilesh, four children and his parents. The central question before the High Court was whether his death could be treated as "incidental to his employment".
Insurance company challenges compensation
United India Insurance Company had challenged the compensation awarded by the labour court in Kashipur in 2025. The insurer argued that Singh's death was a "natural occurrence unrelated to his professional duties".
It also maintained that the claimants had failed to produce sufficient evidence showing a direct connection between Singh's death and the duties he was performing as part of his employment.
The lawyer representing Singh's wife, however, relied on a Supreme Court judgment involving another truck driver who died after falling into a canal while stopping to bathe during a journey from Ambala to Meerut.
Supreme Court ruling on truck drivers' essential activities
In that case, the Supreme Court had noted that the truck cabin was not air-conditioned and would have been a "baking oven" during an afternoon in the sultry monsoon heat of June 2003, when Yamunanagar recorded a temperature of 42.6°C.
The apex court observed that "the driver needed to stay fresh and alert to protect the truck, ensure a safe journey and safeguard his own life".
It consequently held that such activities undertaken by a truck driver could be considered "incidental to the employment".
Court says eating was linked to long driving duties
Relying on that principle, a single-judge bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani dismissed the insurance company's appeal on Monday.
The court observed that Singh's work required him to drive heavy trucks for extended periods, which was inherently physically demanding. It said, "Having food, a necessary activity for maintaining health during such extensive duties, was integral to his employment."
The court further held that "such essential tasks, even if they appear personal in nature, constitute an integral part of an employee’s contractual duties and responsibilities".
On that basis, the High Court held that Singh's family was entitled to compensation.
