The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the expressions 'arising out of and in the course of employment' in Sec. 3(1) of the Employee's Compensation Act and the applicability of the doctrine of notional extension.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

1. This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the award dated 20.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Cuttack (Commissioner) in E.C Case No. 21-D/2015, whereby and whereunder the Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs. 11,82,784/- as compensation and directed the insurance company to pay the same within thirty days, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the case.

2. The brief facts of the case, which are relevant to dispose of the appeal, are:

The claimant-respondent no. 1 was the driver of the truck bearing registration number OD-02-N-6303. On 14.6.2014 at about 8 A.M. he parked the truck on the left side of the road near Kalpana Chhak, Cuttack-Puri Road, Bhubaneswar, got down and instructed the helper to grease the back side wheel of the truck. At that time, another truck bearing registration number OD-02-L-3534 came in a high speed and dashed against him, as a result of which he sustained fracture injury on his right leg femur and other injuries. He was shifted to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar for treatment. Thereafter, he was shifted to KIIMS Hospital. His right leg femur fracture was operated and nail was applied. Laxmisagar Police Station Case No. 195 of 2014 was registered. With this factual scenario, the claimant filed E.C. Case No. 21-D of 2015 before the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Cuttack claiming compensation of rupees ten lakhs. It was pleaded that the claimant was 32 years old at the time of accident.

3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed separate written statements denying the assertions made in the petition.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner struck four issues. To substantiate the case, the claimant adduced evidence. No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. On an anatomy of the pleadings and the evidence, the Commissioner came to hold that the claimant was a workman. He was 32 years old at the time of accident. It assessed the loss of earning capacity of the claimant at 80% and monthly wage at Rs. 8000/-. Held so, it awarded an amount of Rs. 11,82,784/- and directed the insurer to pay the same to the claimant within thirty days, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the case.

5. Heard Mr. Subrat Satpathy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1.

6. Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident did not arise in course of and out of the employment of the claimant and as such, the insurer is exonerated from its liability. There was no casual connection between the employment and the accident. Under Sec. 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short "the M.V. Act"), the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. To buttress the submission, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay vs. Mrs. Agnes, (1964) AIR SC 193, Mackinnon Machenzie and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak, (1969) 2 SCC 607, Mamtaj Bi Bapusab Nadaf and Others vs. United India Insurance Company and Others, (2010) 10 SCC 536 and Leela Bai and Another vs. Seema Chouhan and Another, Civil Appeal No. 931 of 2019 and SLP (C) No. 5576 of 2017.

7. Per contra, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that the accident occurred in course of and out of the employment of the claimant. The claimant is entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Ram Prasad and Another, (2001) 9 SCC 395, Manju Sarkar and Others vs. Mabish Miah and Others, (2014) 14 SCC 21, Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and Others vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 298 and the decision of t