The central legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the Employees Compensation Act must be considered while adjudicating claims for compensation, and the exemption of liability in cases of injury caused by the employee being under the influence of drink or drug does not apply to cases of death or permanent total disablement influenced as a result of such accident.

By this appeal filed under section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the said Act) the appellants-original claimants have challenged judgment dated 22-1-2015 passed by the learned Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act by which the application preferred by them under section 22 of the said Act has been dismissed.

2. The appellants are the dependents of one Prakash who was employed as a driver with the respondent No. 2. On 31-5-2011 when said Prakash was driving a car, the same met with an accident resulting in said car turning turtle resulting in death of said Prakash. According to the appellants, the accident occurred during the course of and out of employment with respondent No. 2. Said Prakash was getting salary of Rs. 5500/- per month and was aged about 24 years when the accident took place. Hence claim for compensation came to be filed.

3. The respondent No. 1-Insurance Company took the stand that the accident occurred on account of a voluntary act of the driver who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The owner of the vehicle also filed reply and took the stand that though the deceased was employed as a driver, his services had been terminated on 7-2-2011. On 31-5-2011, said Prakash took away the car and drove the same in a drunken condition resulting in the accident. Hence the liability was denied. The learned Commissioner, after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the car in question was being driven by Prakash in his capacity as driver at high speed and it dashed a two wheeler. It thereafter did not stop and tried to speed away after which it dashed the road divider. The deceased was under influence of alcohol when the accident took place. It held that there was no connection of the accident with the employment and on that basis it rejected the claim for compensation.

4. The appeal was admitted by framing the following substantial question of law :-

"Whether the learned Commissioner was justified in ignoring the provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 while rejecting the claim for compensation ?"

Shri A.J. Pathak, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the claim for compensation. He submitted that in view of provisions of section 3(1)(b)(i) of the said Act, when death occurred during the course of employment, the claimants would be entitled for compensation despite the fact that the deceased was under the influence of liquor. He submitted that the learned Commissioner having found that the accident occurred when the deceased was driving the car in the capacity as driver, the claim for compensation could not have been rejected. He placed reliance upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Seema Devi and ors., 2006 ACJ 1357. It was therefore submitted that the appellants were entitled for compensation. Ms. Anita Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation as no premium had been paid for a paid driver. The policy in question was a standard private car package policy. As the accident occurred when the driver was under influence of liquor, the Insurance Company was not liable. Shri Amit Khare, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 relied upon the provisions of section 2(dd) of the said Act and submitted that as the deceased had met with an accident under influence of liquor, the owner of the vehicle could not be held liable. The act in question was not one committed during the course of employment and therefore it was submitted that the claim had been rightly rejected. He referred to the report at Exhibit-45 to indicate that the deceased was under influence of liquor and it was not the intention of the legislature to award compensation when an accident occurred in such situation.

5. Heard the respe