The act of parking and alighting from a vehicle at a destination assigned by the employer is incidental to the duties of a driver, falling within the 'notional extension' of employment under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.

JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, challenging the order dated 19.02.2020 in E.C.No.49 of 2013 on the file of learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 i.e., applicant, was working as a driver on a car bearing registration No.AP-29-P-6573 under the employment of respondent No.2. On 27.03.2013, while respondent No.1 was on duty, he proceeded to the Income Tax Office situated on the outskirts of Nalgonda town. After parking the car and while alighting from the vehicle at about 12.00 noon, a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-24-R-5453, driven at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against respondent No.1 from behind. As a result of the accident, respondent No.1 sustained a fracture of the left leg below the knee, fractures to the upper limbs and multiple injuries all over the body. He was immediately shifted to Leelavathi Hospital, Nalgonda, where he was treated as an inpatient and underwent surgical procedures. A criminal case in Crime No.76 of 2013 was registered by Nalgonda Rural Police Station. Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed an application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

After receipt of notice, respondent No.2 failed to appear before the Tribunal and was set ex parte.

The appellant–Insurance Company filed its counter denying all the material averments and contending that the claim is not maintainable in law. The appellant–Insurance Company specifically denied the existence of an employer–employee relationship, the alleged employment of respondent No.1 as a driver, the occurrence of accident, nature of injuries, treatment taken, wages, age and validity of the driving licence. It was contended that the alleged accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The appellant–Insurance Company alleged that the claim is false, malicious and founded on a belated and fabricated complaint, filed with an intention to unlawfully extract compensation. While admitting that the vehicle in question was insured with it, the appellant–Insurance Company denied its liability to pay compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim application against it.

During the course of trial before the Tribunal, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of respondent No.1/applicant. On behalf of the appellant–Insurance Company, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked.

Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,07,044/- directing payment within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which respondent No.1/applicant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the compensation amount from 28.04.2013 to 29.03.2016 and from 11.10.2018 till the date of realization.

Heard Smt.Madhavi Priya Mantena, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Smt.Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the record.

The learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law, evidence and the probabilities of the case. It was further contended that the injured applicant does not fall within the definition of a “workman” under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, “the Act”) and that the claim petition itself was not framed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It was also contended that the employer–employee relationship between respondent Nos.1 and 2 was not established by any documentary evidence and that the alleged accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment.

The learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company further contended that as on the date of the accident, the injured did not possess a valid driving licenc