The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Notional Extension Theory to determine the course of employment and liability for compensation in cases of work-related accidents resulting in injury or death.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, against the order passed in E.C.No.106 of 2019, dated 05.07.2022 on the file of Commissioner for Employees'' Compensation, Dindigul.)

Challenging the order passed by the Commissioner for Employee''s Compensation, Dindigul, in E.C.No.106 of 2019, dated 05.07.2022, the appellant has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, are as follows:-

The deceased Malayalam was working as a Cleaner in a Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-47-AA-6064, owned by the first respondent. On 17.12.2014, the lorry loaded with gravel stone and unloaded the same at Kumbakonam and on 18.12.2014, again loaded with salt at Vedharanyam and on the way, the said Lorry was parked near Mulliyaru, in order to prepare the food. When the deceased went to the stream to clean the vessels, accidently slipped into the river and died. He was earning a sum of Rs.7,500/-, besides Rs.50/- as batta per day and totally earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month and he was aged about 45 years. A case has also been registered in Crime No.264 of 2014, in respect of the unnatural death of the deceased. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.

4. Before the Commissioner of Employees'' Compensation, the first respondent remained set ex-parte. The 2nd respondent - Insurance Company has filed a counter affidavit calling upon the petitioners to prove the age, monthly income of the deceased and also to prove that the deceased was working as a Cleaner. The Insurance Company has took a stand before the Labour Court that the deceased was not working as a Cleaner under the first respondent and the accident was also not properly intimated to the Insurance Company.

5. To substantiate the case before the Commissioner of Employees'' Compensation, on the side of the petitioners, one witness was examined as P.W.1 and 9 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and on the side of the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company, no evidence was adduced and no document was marked.

6. Based on the evidence and materials, the Commissioner for Employees'' Compensation holding that the death was occurred in the course of employment and awarded a sum of Rs.7,52,600/- as compensation. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.

7. When the matter came up for admission, this Court by order dated 16.12.2022, has admitted the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and has framed the following substantial questions of law, which are as follows:

“1. Whether the Commissioner for Employees'' Compensation has failed to decide the issue of employment and the employee-employer relationship and the occurrence of accident during and in the course of employment?

2. Whether the Commissioner for Employees'' Compensation has erred in holding the appellant to pay compensation without any liability?

3. Whether the Commissioner Employees'' Compensation has the power to go beyond the terms and conditions of the policy and direct the appellant insurance company to pay compensation amount to the petitioner?”

8. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company vehemently contended that the notional extension theory applied by the Commissioner for Employees'' Compensation will not be applicable to the facts of the present case and the deceased took risk in going to the river and drowned. Since it is the public area, the employer will not be liable to pay the compensation. He further submitted that that the owner of the lorry has not been examined and he was remained ex parte and therefore, there is no evidence to show that the deceased was working as a Cleaner under the first respondent. Therefore, th