The judgment establishes the principle of notional extension of employment and the criteria for determining whether an accident arises out of and in the course of employment, influencing the liability of the insurance company.

1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / The New India Assurance Company Limited, against the order dated 07.12.2009, made in W.C.Case No.97 of 2007, on the file of Court of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-2 (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-2), Chennai – 6.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:

The (deceased) Sekar was working as a labourer under the first opposite party engaged in laying of road from Paruvakudi to Kovilpatti at Tiruvengadam, Tirunelveli District. On 9.4.2005, while the deceased was returning from the work spot to his Cottage residence, which was provided by the first opposite party at Sangupattivilakku nearby the work spot, an unknown vehicle came in a negligent manner and hit against the deceased Sekar. In the above said accident the deceased Sekar sustained multiple fractures. The applicants submit that immediately afterwards the deceased Sekar was given first aid at Kovilpatti Government Hospital, but he died there on 10.04.2005. The applicants submit that the deceased Sekar was 28 years at the time of accident and he died leaving behind the applicants as his surviving legal heirs. The first opposite party took the workman policy for (deceased) Sekar with the second opposite party and hence the applicants have filed the claim for Rs.6,00,000/- against the first and second opposite parties.

3. The second opposite party in his counter has resisted the claim denying the averments in the claim regarding the age, income and occupation of the (deceased) Sekar. The averments in the claim that the (deceased) Sekar had died while doing his duty during the course of his employment under the first opposite party was also denied. It was stated that on the date of accident, the (deceased) Sekar had been intoxicated as he had consumed alcohol and subsequent to this, an unknown vehicle had dashed against him and caused the accident. As such it was contended that the accident did not happen during the period when the (deceased) Sekar was doing his duty during the course of his employment under the first opposite party, but had occurred while he was returning to his home. It was also submitted that the applicant should prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased through proper documentary evidence.

4. On the averments of both the parties, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, had framed five issues for consideration, namely;

“(i) Did the (deceased) Sekar work as a labourer under the employment of the first opposite party?

(ii) If so, did he die while doing his work during the course of his employment under the first opposite party?

(iii) What is the age and income of the (deceased) Sekar?

(iv) What is the compensation that the applicants are entitled to get?

(v) Who is liable to pay compensation?”

5. On the applicants side, the first applicant (wife of deceased) was examined as PW1. PW1 has given her sworn affidavit and marked exhibits P1 to P5 namely:-

1. Ex.P1 - First Information Report;

2. Ex.P2 – Postmortem report;

3. Ex.P3 – Death certificate;

4. Ex.P4 – Legal heir certificate and;

5. Ex.P5 – Copy of Insurance policy.

6. On the applicants side, one witness was examined as PW2, on the second opposite party's side, the administrative officer working in the second opposite party's side had given his sworn affidavit and marked two documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 namely:-

1. Ex.P1 – Authorisation letter and;

2. Ex.P2 – Insurance Policy.

7. PW1 in her sworn affidavit had stated the same version of accident as mentioned in the claim. During Cross-examination she had stated that she was also working as a labourer under the employment of first opposite party; that the working hours are from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.; that for subsequent periods of working, overtime was paid; that she had come to her husband's native place, situated at Gingee Taluk of Villupuram, 2 days prior to the accident; that she had been informed of the accident by the first opposite party; that the complaint had been lodged