The judgment establishes the principle that an accident must arise both 'out of' and 'in the course of employment' and considers the concept of 'notional extension' of employment.

JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dtd. 7/8/2018 granting compensation to the respondents to the tune of Rs.8, 15, 400.00 along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. by the Additional Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Judge, 7th Labour Court, Mumbai, the insurer had preferred this appeal amongst following facts and grounds.

2. Deceased Harshad @ Sachin Vijay Kamble, was the son of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and an employee of respondent no.3. While discharging his duties an employee of the respondent no.3 deceased Harshad @ Sachin Vijay Kamble met with an accident as he was dashed by an unknown vehicle at Vine Gaon, Mumbai-Pune Highway No.4, Near Khalapur, Dist. Raigad. The respondent nos. 1 and 2, who area parents of the deceased have moved an application under Sec. 4 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.

3. On 3/9/2015 deceased Harshad, as a driver of respondent no.3, had taken some students and teachers of Saboo Siddiki Technical College to Monteria Resort at Khalapur, Dist. Raigad for a picnic. After parking the motor vehicle at the said Resort, he went for shaving and met with a vehicular accident, resulting into his death due to the fatal injuries.

4. An offence came to be registered with Khalapur Police Station, Dist. Raigad.

5. It is the contention of respondent nos. 1 and 2 that at the relevant time, the deceased was employed with respondent no.3 and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.8, 000.00. He was aged about 32 years. After his death in an accident, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have raised a claim before respondent no.3 and the insurer but the same was neither responded nor complied with.

6. Pursuant to filing an application under Sec. 4 of the Employees' Compensation Act, notices were duly served upon the appellant and respondent no.3. Despite sufficient opportunity, respondent no.3 did not appear before the Court and, therefore, the matter proceeded against him in his absence.

7. The appellant in its written statement denied all the averments made in the application. The specific stand of the appellant was that there was no casual connection between the incident and the work of the deceased, for which he was engaged. The appellant, therefore, disowned the liability in respect of the insured vehicle by contending that it was not involved in the accident/incident. The appellant, therefore, prayed for rejection of the claim of respondent nos. 1 and 2.

8. The learned Commissioner framed necessary issues after hearing the learned Counsel for the respondents and by the impugned judgment and order, awarded compensation as above. The learned Commissioner inter alia directed the respondent no.3 to make payment of penalty amount to the extent of 50% of the claim amount.

9. I heard Ms. Bajpayee, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mendon, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

10. Ms. Bajpayee, took me through the impugned Judgment and award by contending that the learned Judge has not considered the evidence on record in its correct perspective, in the sense, there is no evidence tendered to show that the deceased was in fact, working with respondent no.3 and that the incident took place during the course of his employment. It is contended that the accident did not arise out of the employment as the deceased died while going for shaving and, therefore, it cannot be termed to be 'a death during and in the course of employment'. It is further contended that the learned Judge ought to have considered the fact that the deceased had parked the vehicle and went for shaving and while crossing the road, was knocked down by another vehicle. Hence, there is no casual connection with the job on employment and that of the accident. It is contended that the observations of the learned Judge that the opponents are under legal obligation to cover the risk of such drivers in entire span of time and not only for the period of driving, is grossly erroneous. It is further contended that th