MHATRE NISHITA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Appeal has been filed by the wife of the deceased-workman against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation rejecting her application.

( 2 ) THE deceased-workman was working with the Respondent doing the work of loading and unloading of goods. On 14. 3. 1990, at about 8. 30 pm, the deceased met with an accident while riding his motor cycle opposite Mosco bazaar, Darukhana, Sewree. The deceased was removed to JJ Hospital, mumbai where he succumbed to his injuries at about 10. 30 pm. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 28 years of age and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/- inclusive of allowances. By a notice issued under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, the appellant called upon the respondent to pay compensation on account of the death of the workman. She claimed that he had died due to injury sustained by him arising out of and during the course of employment. The appellant claimed an amount of rs. 84,716/- alongwith interest, penalty and costs. Since there was no response from the respondent, the appellant filed an application before the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The respondent opposed this application by contending that the workman was employed as a general workman in Hay Bunder complex at Mazgaon. On 14. 3. 1990, i. e. , on the date when the accident occurred, he had punched his card showing that he had reported for duty at 16:36 hrs and had left the place of work on 23:26 hours. It was on 21. 3. 1990 that the respondent learnt of the death of the workman since his father had collected all his belongings from the lockers. The Respondent contended that although the deceased workman was employed in the shift i. e. , 3pm to 11 pm, there was no need for him to have left the place of work and therefore, the accident which occurred at around 8. 30 pm could not be on account of his official duties. The injury sustained by the deceased was not arising out of and in the course of employment.

( 3 ) EVIDENCE of the appellant was led. She deposed that her deceased husband had obtained a loan from the respondent and had purchased a motor cycle which he was riding at the time when he met with an accident. The respondent adduced evidence of the Operation Officer of the company and the Deputy Manager working in the warehouse. Significantly, neither the applicant nor the respondent examined one Ghegadmal who was the pillion rider on the motor cycle of the deceased workman when the accident occurred. On a consideration of the evidence led before him, the Commissioner has concluded that the accident which occurred on 14. 3. 1990 at 8. 30 pm did not arise out of and in the course of employment of the deceased workman. Therefore, the Commissioner has dismissed the application. The Commissioner was of the view that the evidence on record indicated that the deceased workman had left the place of work without permission and of his own sweet will. The Commissioner has found that the accident which occurred at 8. 30 pm was not on account of the respondent having sent the deceased workman for any outdoor work and hence, dismissed the application.

( 4 ) MR. Abhale, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, submits that admittedly the deceased was on duty between 3 pm and 11 pm. The attendance card has been punched at 23:26 hours. He submits that the workman had been sent for duty to another depot alongwith his co-worker Ghegadmal and it was during this period that he met with the fatal accident. The learned advocate further submits that the deceased was riding the motor cycle which had been purchased with the help of a loan given by the employer and, therefore, by applying the theory of notional extension, the deceased had met with an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the case of (National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Manorama dassi), A. I. R. 1953 Calcutta 143; (Laxmibai v. Chairman and T