IMPORTANT POINT
Accident took place during period spent on going to office and coming back should be treated as accident occurred in the cause of employment.

G.S. Hora, Presiding Member—This appeal arises out of order dated 27.1.2007 passed by the. District Consumer Forum (DCF), Jaipur-II, Jaipur whereby while allowing the complaint, the Appellants were directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of

Rs. 2,00,000 with interest @ 9% per annum from the date when the claim was repudiated and to pay Rs. 3,000 as cost of litigation.

2. Admittedly, the husband of the complainant Late Shri Dayal Karamchandani was detailed as Home Guard volunteer under Home Guard Training Centre, Nagaur and was posted at Parbatsar. He was covered under the Group Insurance of the Appellant Department. On 2.1.2002, insured met with an accident in front of tyre factory in Parbatsar at 10.15 p.m. while returning from duty point. He w as shifted to Hospital and he expired on 14.2.2002. The complainant lodged claim but the same was disallowed on the ground that the duty hours of the insured were from 2.00-10.00 p.m. and the accident took place after duty hours, and, therefore, the claim was not payable. The only question for consideration is whether the period spent on going to office and coming back should also be included in the period of duty hours. Admittedly, the duty hours were from 2.00-10.00 p.m. and when the insured was coming back from duty at about 10.15 p.m., he met with an accident due to which he died.

3. The learned DCF having considered the arguments came to the conclusion that apart from the duty hours, the period spent on going to office and coming back should also be taken as period spent on duty and thus allowed the complaint as indicated above.

4. The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the terms of the policy have to be construed as they are and we cannot add or subtract anything. The terms of the policy governed the contract between the parties and they have to abide by the terms and conditions given in the policy. The learned Counsel has referred to United India Insurance Company v. Harchand Raichandan Lal1 and argued that as duty hours were from 2.00 to 10.00 p.m. and the accident took place after 10, the rejection of claim was justified.

We have heard both the Counsels and gone through the record.

Before us, the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana rendered in Sheela v. Employees State Insurance Court, has been cited wherein the decision of the Hon’ble-Supreme Court given in Saurashtra Salt , Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja & Ors.2 has been referred. The Hon’ble Supreme Co4rt in Valu Raja’s matter held as under.

“(i) As a rule, employment of a workman does not commence until he has reached the place of employment and does not continue when he has left the place of employment.

(ii) Notwithstanding aforesaid rule, it is now well settled position in law that the said proposition (i) is subject to a rider, namely, that it is subject to the theory of notional extension of the employees’ premises so as to include an area which the workman passes and repasses in going to and in leaving the actual place of work.

(iii) Notional extension theory can be taken recourse to in order to extend in both ‘time’ and ‘place’ in a reasonable manner, in order to ascertain whether an accident to a workman may be regarded as in the course of employment though he had not actually reached his employment premises.

(iv) Facts and circumstances of each case will have to be examined very carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment of the workman keeping in view at all times the theory of notional extension.”

5. Having gone through the above ruling, we are of the view that importance has to be given to the theory of notional extension and while applying that theory, it has to be held the accident occurred within duty period. It can be said that the accident occurred in the cause of employment. Respondent No.2 had also written to the appellants that the benefits should be given to the complainant.

For the foregoing reasons, the c