The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of notional extension to establish the casual connection between the employment of the deceased and his accidental death.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

1. This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the award dated 7.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack (Commissioner) in E.C Case No. 342-D/2014 whereby and whereunder the Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs. 5,56,775/- 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 accident till payment.

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

One Dillip Kumar Mohanta was working as a helper in a Bolero Pick-up bearing registration number OR-04-L-2555. On 6.6.2014, the vehicle was proceeding from Kendrapara to Cuttack. On the way near Chandolgada at about 6.30 P.M. the driver parked the vehicle and directed the helper to take tiffin. While he was crossing the road, all of a sudden, an unknown vehicle dashed him and fled away, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries on his person and shifted to SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for treatment. While undergoing treatment, he died in the hospital. Post-mortem was conducted over the dead body. Mangalabag Police Station U.D. Case No. 848 of 2014 was registered. With this factual scenario, the claimants-respondents filed E.C. Case No. 342-D of 2014 before the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack claiming compensation of rupees eight lakhs. It was pleaded that the deceased was 20 years old at the time of accident.

3. Opposite parties 1 and 3 entered appearance and filed separate written statements. Opposite party no. 1 in his written statement admitted the employment and accidental death of the deceased Dillip Kumar Mohanta. It was stated that the deceased was getting Rs. 5,000/- per month towards wages. Offending vehicle was validly insured with the opposite party no. 3. Opposite party no. 3 insurer filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the petition.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner struck three issues. To substantiate the case, the claimants 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 deceased was a workman. He was 21 years old at the time of death. He was earning Rs. 5000/- per month. Held so, it awarded an amount of Rs. 5,56,775/- and directed the insurer to pay the same to the claimants within thirty days, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till payment.

5. Heard Mr. Subrat Satpathy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.

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 deceased 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 nos.1 to 3 submitted that the accident occurred in course of and out of the employment of the deceased. The claimants are 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