The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for connectivity between the accident and the employment or the insured vehicle to grant compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, against the order dated 20.02.2017 made in W.C.No.223 of 2015 on the file of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor, The Nilgiris District.)

The Award dated 20.02.2017 passed in W.C.No.223 of 2015 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The claimants are the appellants and the application filed under the Workmen Compensation Act was rejected and challenging the said rejection, the present appeal is filed.

3. The Substantial Questions of law raised in the appeal on hand is that whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is right in not appreciating the evidences placed by the appellants; Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is correct in dismissing the application though the appellants have proved that the deceased drove the vehicle from Delhi to Madurai and the accident occurred during the course of employment; Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is right in not considering the fact that the Workmen Compensation Act is a welfare legislation.

4. The question of law raised in the present appeal are related to facts and cannot be considered as a Substantial Question of law. However, this Court is inclined to consider the facts in order to ascertain whether the decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is in consonance with the provisions of the Act and based on the evidences or not.

5. The First Appellant is the wife of the deceased workman and second and third appellants are the minor sons and fourth and fifth respondents are the parents of the deceased. The Claim Petition was filed on the ground that the deceased P.Raju was a workman and was working as a Driver under the first respondent / K.P.Saraswathi, in a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-AB-5999. On 16.05.2010 at about 10.00 a.m, the deceased Raju was engaged as a Driver in the said lorry owned by the first respondent and the lorry was proceeding from Delhi to Madurai with a loaded potato vegetable. The deceased driver Raju and cleaner Krishna Kumar were parked the lorry in Kumar Body builder at Murugan Kovil, Salem Road, Namakkal. Thereafter, they went to take bath and to change their dress in their house, which is in the nearby village from Namakkal. The loaded lorry was parked in a garage in the Namakkal in a protective manner because the lorry was loaded with potato vegetable. The deceased Raju and the cleaner went to their native place in Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-28-A25640 and they met with an accident on the way to Namakkal near at Karunkalpalayam.

6. This being the admitted fact between the parties, the learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the loaded lorry has to reach Madurai in between at Namakkal. The deceased Raju parked the vehicle in a garage and went to his village for taking bath and changing dress, he went to his village in a two wheeler and the said two wheeler met with an accident and he died. Thus, for all purposes, the deceased Raju was an employee and the accident occurred during the course of employment. A criminal case was registered in Crime No.267 of 2010.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the evidence by stating that the deceased parked the lorry and went to take bath. Therefore, he was in employment and the accident occurred during the course of employment. Mere traveling to his village during the course of employment, cannot be held against the claimants, so as to deprive them to get compensation under the welfare legislation.

8. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellants cited the judgment of Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. K.V.Joseph, reported in [2007] 4 CTC 106. The Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala, in paragraph 8 of the judgment, held as follows:

“8. We are of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the claimant has satisfied all the tests viz., notional extension, casual connection and reasonabl