The court established that an employee's fatal accident during commute can be deemed to arise out of employment under the notional extension doctrine, warranting compensation based on actual wages.

JUDGMENT:-

1. The appellant impugns judgment and order dated 08.05.2023 passed by Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Judge Labour Court at Latur in Application (W.C.A.) No.111/2017. The respondent no.1 has also filed Cross Objection assailing findings of Commissioner recorded in impugned judgment. (Hereinafter, parties are referred to by their original status for the sake of convenience and brevity).

2. Brief facts of case are as under:

The respondent no.1/original claimant instituted proceeding before Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Judge Labour Court at Latur contending that her husband Ramdhan Jadhav was retired soldier. He was appointed as watchman at Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd, Sai Nagar, Ranjani, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad. He was getting monthly salary of Rs.11,351/-. On 10.05.2016, he was assigned night duty. On 10.05.2016, when he was proceeding towards Sugar Factor on motorcycle bearing Registration No.MH-24-L-0805, another motorcycle bearing Registration No.MH-29-AP-9511 gave forceful dash to motorcycle of deceased. Due to such accident, he suffered fatal injuries and took his last breath on 17.05.2016. The accident was reported to police station. Eventually, offences was registered. According to the applicant, the deceased died during the course of or arising out of employment. The respondent is under obligation to pay compensation.

3. The respondent no.1-Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd. filed written statement contending that on 10.05.2016, Ramdhan was absent from duty. There is no causal connection between his accidental death and employment. In alternate, they contend that they had obtained Employees Compensation Cover from respondent no.2-Insurance Company, who accepted liability to pay compensation.

4. The respondent no.2-Insurance Company denied all averments in claim application and submitted that they have no liability.

5. The learned Commissioner framed issues, recorded evidence of the parties and finally concluded that respondent no.1 is liable to pay compensation amount of Rs.6,25,880/- to claimant alongwith with interest @ 12% per annum.

6. Aggrieved employer filed present Appeal assailing judgment and award passed by the Commissioner. The applicant has filed Cross Objection on the ground that Commissioner failed to award penalty. Secondly, compensation is not assessed as per actual salary. The cap of earning is wrongly imposed.

7. By order dated 19.01.2024 notices were issued to respondents indicating that First Appeal would be heard finally at the stage of admission and record and proceeding was also called for. Accordingly, heard finally at admission stage by consent of parties on following substantial questions of law:

(A) Whether Late Ramdhan died during course of and arising out of employment with respondent-Sugar Factory, particularly when accident took place before commencement of his duty hours, outside place of employment between his motorcycle and third party vehicle?

(B) Whether insurer could have been made liable to pay compensation based on Employees Compensation Policy obtained by appellant?

(C) Whether compensation could have been assessed relying upon actual monthly wages of deceased ignoring Notification issued under Section 4(1)(1-B) by Central Government?

(D) Whether employer could have been made liable for penalty under Section 4-A(2) for making default in deposit of compensation amount?

8. Mr. Kendre, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that accident took place before time of duty hours of deceased. It was a motor vehicular accident outside premises of employer. There is no causal connection between employment and death of the deceased. In support of his contentions he relies upon judgment of this Court in case of Meenakshi Gas Agencies, Warora Vs. Ramaji Kusum Yerme and Ors., [AIROnline 2019 Bom 2910.]. He would further submit that insurer has accepted risk of employees under workmen compensation policy, but Commissioner wrongly exone