The doctrine of notional extension of employment applies, entitling claimants to compensation even during incidental acts like attending to nature's call, confirming employer and insurer liability.

JUDGMENT :

Umesh M. Adiga, J.

This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 30 (1) of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act'), challenging the correctness of the order dated 3^rd March 2020, passed by the IX Addl.Small Causes and C/c. XXII Addl.Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-24), (for short, 'Commissioner'), in ECA .No.162/2016.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Commissioner.

3. The brief facts of the case of the claimants are that, the claimants being the wife and minor children of one Khaja Ali Khan, an employee of respondent No.1, filed the claim petition before the trial Court under Section 22 of the Employees's Compensation Act, for awarding of compensation, due to the death of said Khaja Ali Khan during the course of his employment on 31.08.2016 at Gandiguda Village of Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State, on National Highway No.44.

4. After contest, the said claim petition was allowed by the Commissioner and awarded an amount of Rs.7,93,240/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from expiry of one month from the date of accident, till its realisation. It was also ordered that respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle shall deposit the said amount of compensation and claim against the insurer was dismissed by the impugned judgment and award dated 03.03.2020.

5. The said judgment and award is challenged by the claimants in the present appeal with a sole ground that Commissioner has erred in exonerating the insurer from its liability to pay compensation and liability shall be fastened on the respondent No.2-insurer.

6. On 25.10.2024, this appeal was admitted to consider following substantial question of law.

" whether the Tribunal erred in exonerating the liability of 2^nd respondent and non-application of the theory of notional extension as contended. If so, to what result? "

7. The impugned judgment and award has not been challenged by respondent No.1 - owner of the lorry. Claimants have not challenged quantum of the compensation awarded by the Commissioner.

8. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased Khaja Ali Khan was serving as a driver under respondent No.1 in his Eicher Goods tempo bearing registration No.KA-08-7337, on a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/- and batta of Rs.200/- per day. Their exists employer and employee relationship between deceased, as well as respondent No.1. On 31.08.2016, deceased after loading of goods in the said lorry, took it to a town in Andhra Pradesh and after unloading the same, while returning towards Bengaluru, at Gandiguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal of Ranga Reddy District in Telangana State, he stopped his vehicle and tried to cross the road to attend nature's call. At that time, an over-speeding lorry bearing registration No.TS-12-UA-8687, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the said Khaza Ali Khan, which resulted in his death at the spot. The contentions of the claimants was that during the course of his employment, he met with an accident, therefore, respondents are liable to pay the compensation.

9. The Commissioner framed necessary issues, recorded the evidence of the parties to the proceedings and on appreciation of the materials available on record, by the impugned judgment and award dated 03.03.2020 held that, accident occurred during the course of employment. The Commissioner has calculated the amount of compensation and further held that the accident was not occurred due to involvement of the lorry bearing regist