The court affirmed the principle of 'notional extension,' ruling that a workman is considered to be in the course of employment even before reaching the employer's premises if they are proceeding to duty, thereby making the employer liable for compensation.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Veda Vikas Mudiraj Vuppari, learned Standing Counsel for Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University (PJTAU) appearing for the appellants, Sri Ch.Indrasena Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the material available on record.

2. The present Appeal is filed assailing the order dated 29.08.2022 passed in E.C.No.5 of 2019 on the file of the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy (for short ‘the Commissioner’).

3. The facts leading to file the claim are that the respondent No.2/applicant, who is the wife of the deceased late M.Yadaiah, was working as a casual cook under the employment of the appellants herein since 07.08.1983 till the date of incident. On 04.05.2005, while the deceased was performing his duties as casual cook and he was proceeding by scooter bearing No.AP 28 F 8693 from Rajendranagar to get vegetables for hostel, a van bearing No.AP 9 T 7717 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the said scooter and the accident took place. In the accident, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. The Police registered a case in Crime No.262 of 2005 under Section 304 (A) of Indian Penal Code. Further, the applicant stated that the deceased was employed and earning Rs.3,646/- per month and was aged about 36 years on the date of the accident and claimed Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation along with interest, costs and penalty @ 50% of the compensation.

4. The appellants herein, who are the respondents before the learned Tribunal, initially, raised an objection that the claim is filed with abnormal delay. However, the claimant filed ECIA No.1 of 2017 to condone the delay of 3678 days in filing the main application and the said application was allowed.

5. The appellants denied the claim on various grounds including that of relationship as employer and employee between the appellants and the deceased, and the accident did not occur during the course and out of his employment as well as on the ground of abnormal delay, and contends that the application is liable to be dismissed.

6. Basing on the evidence and arguments, the learned Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:

“1) Whether the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident on 04.05.2005 during the course and out of his employment as casual cook under the employment of the opposite parties? and

2) What is the amount of compensation entitled by the dependants of the deceased?”

7. Before the learned Commissioner, on behalf of the applicant, AW1, who is the wife of the deceased was examined and Exs-A1 to A10 were marked whereas on behalf of the appellants, RW1, who is the Superintendent of the Institution was examined and no documents were placed on record.

8. The learned Commissioner, upon hearing the rival contentions, initially on the ground of the delay which was condoned as reasonable and sufficient cause.Thereafter, the learned Commissioner heard the claim petition and while dealing with the points raised for consideration held that while the deceased was proceedings to his duty from Rajendranagar, he met with an accident and died on the spot. Basing on Ex.A-7 salary certificate and by taking into consideration of the salary of the deceased as Rs.3,646/- per