The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the phrase 'arising out of and in the course of employment' under the Employees' Compensation Act, emphasizing the causal relationship between the accident and the employment, and the principle of notional extension of employment.

JUDGMENT

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Leave granted.

2. The judgment dated 23rd April 2014 passed in FAO No. 349 of 2011 by the High Court of Delhi is called in question in this appeal by the unsuccessful claimants. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the award passed by the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (Known earlier as the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 until 2009) (for brevity "the Act") dismissing the claimants' petition on the ground that the accident cannot be said to have arisen out of and in the course of employment.

3. Records reveal that the deceased workman Shri Ravi Shekhar Joshi, son of the appellant, was employed with respondent (Dynemech Systems Pvt. Ltd.) as an engineer. He was entrusted with the duty to be in the field for promoting the sales/installation of the products of the respondent. On the unfortunate day of the accident, i.e., 08.09.2007, the deceased and his co-worker Shri Vikas (who was also employed as an engineer/sales executive) were deputed to test a filter which was installed on 07.09.2007 at Hero Honda Factory, Dharu Heda, Haryana. Accordingly, both of them went from Delhi and checked the filter installed at Hero Honda Factory, Dharu Heda, Haryana in the afternoon and thereafter started the return journey to Delhi at 4:30 PM. Both the workers including the deceased met with road accident while they were little away from Hero Honda Factory and sustained injuries. Both were taken to the hospital wherein the deceased was declared "brought dead" while his co-worker was discharged after being given first-aid.

The appellants filed an application for compensation under Section 22 of the Act before the Learned Commissioner. Based on the pleadings, the Learned Commissioner framed the following issues.

1 Whether the accident of the deceased occurred during the course of and out of employment?

2 Whether the deceased falls under the definition of workman under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?

3 If so, whether the claimant is entitled for compensation as per claim application?

4 Relief, if any?

After the full-fledged trial, written arguments were submitted on 30th January, 2010. The Commissioner, after a wait of about 14 months dismissed the claim application of the appellants by deciding issue no. 1 only, on the ground that the accident cannot be said to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. The said award of dismissal of the claim petition was confirmed by the High Court as mentioned supra.

4. The only question to be decided by this Court in this appeal is as to whether the Learned Commissioner, as well as the High Court is justified in deciding that the accident in question cannot be said to have arisen out of and in the course of employment.

5. Undisputedly the employer's liability for compensation to the employee arises only if the employee has suffered in the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. Section 3(1) of the Act deals with the employer's liability for compensation to the employee in case of accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Section 3(1) reads thus:

"If personal injury is caused to [an employee] by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this chapter:"

The amount of compensation where the death resulted from the injury shall be quantified in accordance with Section 4 of the the Act. Section 4(1)(a) reads thus:

"Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:-

(a) where death results from the injury : An amount equal to fifty per cent. of the monthly wages of the deceased *[employee] multiplied by the relevant factor;

or

an amount of *[one lakh and twenty thousand rupees], whichever is more;"

6. The words `arising out of' and `in the course of employment' are in fact two different phrases and have been understood as such. If the accident had occurred on ac