The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the theory of notional extension of employment premises and the determination of 'in the course of employment' in assessing the liability of the insurance company.

( 1 ) THE appellant herein is aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, to the first respondent-claimant in a sum of Rs. 2,21,370/ -.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are to the effect that the first respondent herein who is the mother of deceased-Gopal filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dakshina kannada, claiming compensation on the ground that her son deceased-Gopal was working as a cleaner in a Tanker lorry KA-20-5034 and on 7-2-2000. when the deceased was travelling in the Lorry, the vehicle was stopped near Koolur and the deceased got out of the vehicle to go to Kurikatta office to pay commission amount and thereafterwards, the deceased never returned back to the vehicle. On enquiry, the claimant came to know that the dead body of her son gopal was found in the Panambur beach and it is her case that Gopal died while he was on duty and therefore, she sought for compensation. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, after taking into account the material placed, allowed the application and awarded the compensation as mentioned above, Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance company is in appeal.

( 3 ) THE main contention put forward by the learned counsel Shri P. B. Raju for the appellant is that the death of first respondent's son gopal did not take place in the course of employment and as such, no liability could have been fastened on the appellant-insurance company by the Commissioner. It is further stated that even taking into account the facts of the case as they stood, yet it cannot be said that deceased Gopal died while he was on duty. The very fact that the dead body of Gopal was found in the sea near Panambur beach, itself is sufficient indication of the fact that deceased was not on duty at the time he made his falling into the sea. In this connection, he also referred to the evidence of R. W. 1, the GPA holder for the vehicle owner, who has said in his evidence by way of affidavit, that the death of deceased-Gopal was not in the course of his employment and further the deceased had gone to Penambur beach which is 3-4 Kms. away from Koolur and there was no connection between the nature of employment of the deceased and his death. Referring to the above evidence of R. W. 1, it is submitted that the commissioner was totally in error in recording a finding that death of Gopal arisen while the deceased was on duty. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent-claimant contended that by the application of theory of notional extension of employment premises, the place where the dead body of Gopal was found has to be treated as coming within the scope of the expression "in the course of employment". In support of his submission, the learned counsel place reliance on number of decisions and they are reported in ILR (2004) Kar 3119 : (2004 AIR-Kant HCR 1284) (The Branch manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Siddappa and Ors.); AIR 1964 SC 193 (General Manager. B. E. S. T. Undertaking. Bombay v. Mrs. Agnes); ILR (2005) Kar. 20 : (2005 air-Kant HCR 151) (The Divisional Controller, nekrtc, Gulbarga v. Sangamma and ors.); ILR (1981) Kar 322 (Karnataka State construction Corporation Ltd. , Bangalore v. The United India Fire and General Insurance co. Ltd.); ILR (2004) Kar 1332 : (2004 AIR-Kant HCR 1146) (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Susheela and Ors.) and 2005 AIR-Kant HCR 1610 (Smt. Premila and Ors. v. Shaliwan and Anr. ). Placing reliance on the above decisions, it is submitted that the death of Gopal took place while he was on duty. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference.

( 5 ) HAVING heard both sides, and after carefully going through all the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant, the point that requires consideration is 'whether in the instant case, the death of Gopal could be said to have occurred while he was discharging h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document