Back
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Dalbir Lal —Appellant
versus
State and Anr. —Respondents
Appeal from Order No.344 of 2008
Decided on 3.6.2016
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. I.P. Kohli, Standing Counsel
Headnote:(1) Motor Vehicles Act,—Section 167—Option regarding claims for compensation—Appellant claimant received compensation in his claim petition filed under the Act—He also claimed compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act on plea that he met with accident while returning from work place to his home—He cannot claim compensation under both Acts. (Para 2)
(2) Workmen’s Compensation Act—Injury arising out of and in the course of employment—To reach at workplace and to arrive to his residence after working hours were over was responsibility of employee which could not be fastened upon employer.
Held: That apart, to reach at the workplace is the responsibility of the employee and it cannot be fastened upon the employer to fetch its employee from his residence and to ensure his safe arrival to his residence after working hours are over for the simple reason that such employee remains out of administrative discipline of the employer after leaving the premises of workplace and he may enjoy the liberty to reach his home after any length of time, as happened in the present controversy. Appellant-employee left the workplace at about 12:00 noon and the accident was met after six hours. Although, his residence was 10 kms away from the workplace but taking more than six hours’ time in order to cover such distance cannot be justified in any manner. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and another Vs. Francis De Costa and another”, reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 432, has held that where an employee while on his way to factory, a place of employment, met with accident one kilometer away from said place that injuries sustained by such employee cannot be said to be caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. (Paras 3 and 4)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—Appellant Mr. Dalbir Singh has already got the compensation under Motor Accidents Claims but he has come up before this Court seeking further compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act for the reason that he met an accident when he had already left his Office and was in the way to reach his home.
2. In this matter, the provisions of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act are relevant viz. reads as under:-
167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases:- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.
This provision contemplates in so many words regarding claims for compensation of a person, who met with accident, in any manner, being an employee, then he may claim compensation under either Motor Vehicles Act or Workmen’s Compensation Act but he cannot be at liberty to claim such compensation under both the Acts. 2
3. That apart, to reach at the workplace is the responsibility of the employee and it cannot be fastened upon the employer to fetch its employee from his residence and to ensure his safe arrival to his residence after working hours are over for the simple reason that such employee remains out of administrative discipline of the employer after leaving the premises of workplace and he may enjoy the liberty to reach his home after any length of time, as happened in the present controversy.
Appellant-employee left the workplace at about 12:00 noon and the accident was met after six hours. Although, his residence was 10 kms away from the workplace but taking more than six hours’ time in order to cover such distance cannot be justified in any manner.
4. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and another Vs. Francis De Costa and another”, reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 432, has held that where an employee while on his way to factory, a place of employment, met with accident one kilometer away from said place that injuries sustained by such employee cannot be said to be caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
In view of what has been set forth above, this appeal has no force and it is hereby dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
