Hi all, Please clarify that, one of our employee has started from his house for duty on his own vehicle. On the way to the site he met with an accident (OUTSIDE THE PLANT / PREMISES), his right leg was fractured and damaged. Please clarify that, is covered under the workmen compensation act or NOT?
MOST URGENT SIR
From India, Warangal
7MOST URGENT SIR
From India, Warangal
PROFESSIONALS AND BUSINESSES PARTICIPATING IN DISCUSSION
Compensation is payable for injury during and in the course of employment.
The employment is deemed to start when the employee reaches the place of work. In case of travel by his own means, compensation will not be payable for injury on the way to work.
There are court decisions on this matter that you can find on google
From India, Mumbai
The employment is deemed to start when the employee reaches the place of work. In case of travel by his own means, compensation will not be payable for injury on the way to work.
There are court decisions on this matter that you can find on google
From India, Mumbai
A traffic accident has no causal connection with the duties assigned to the injured employee. The employee was on his vehicle while coming to the work place. There is no proximate cause between the nature of employment and the accident which can be associated with the hazard of the work being carried out by the employee. So there is no liability for the employer to compensate the employee for any personal accident caused to him.
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
This will support your case i think
In General Manager, B. E. S. T. Undertaking, Bombay v. Mrs. Agnes[5], a public utility transport service run by the Bombay Municipal Corporation, owned a number of buses and employed a staff, including bus drivers, for conducting the said service. The deceased driver finished his work for the day. After leaving the bus in the depot, he boarded another bus in order to go to his residence. Bus collided with a parked lorry. As a result of the said collision, the he was thrown out on the road and got injured. Later he died in the hospital. His widow, filed an application in the Court of the Commissioner for compensation.
The Supreme Court stated that in view of the long distances to be covered by the employees, the Corporation, as a condition of service, provides a bus for collecting all the drivers from their houses so that they may reach their depots in time and to take them back after the day's work. They are given that facility as a right because efficiency of the service demands it. The Court observed that,
“The employment does not necessarily end when the "down tool" signal is given or when the workman leaves the actual workshop where he is working. There is a notional extension at both the entry and exit by time and space. The scope of such extension must necessarily depend on the circumstances of a given case. The doctrine of notional extension of employment developed in the context of specific workshops, factories or harbours, equally applies to such a bus service which provided to employees to get to job on time and reaching their home without further strain contributing to their overall efficiency. The bus service is used as a privilege and matter of right. Their workplace gets notionally extended by virtue of this service.”
The Supreme Court held that when a driver when going home from the depot or coming to the depot uses the bus, any accident that happens to him is an accident in the course of his employment.
From Spain, Burgos
In General Manager, B. E. S. T. Undertaking, Bombay v. Mrs. Agnes[5], a public utility transport service run by the Bombay Municipal Corporation, owned a number of buses and employed a staff, including bus drivers, for conducting the said service. The deceased driver finished his work for the day. After leaving the bus in the depot, he boarded another bus in order to go to his residence. Bus collided with a parked lorry. As a result of the said collision, the he was thrown out on the road and got injured. Later he died in the hospital. His widow, filed an application in the Court of the Commissioner for compensation.
The Supreme Court stated that in view of the long distances to be covered by the employees, the Corporation, as a condition of service, provides a bus for collecting all the drivers from their houses so that they may reach their depots in time and to take them back after the day's work. They are given that facility as a right because efficiency of the service demands it. The Court observed that,
“The employment does not necessarily end when the "down tool" signal is given or when the workman leaves the actual workshop where he is working. There is a notional extension at both the entry and exit by time and space. The scope of such extension must necessarily depend on the circumstances of a given case. The doctrine of notional extension of employment developed in the context of specific workshops, factories or harbours, equally applies to such a bus service which provided to employees to get to job on time and reaching their home without further strain contributing to their overall efficiency. The bus service is used as a privilege and matter of right. Their workplace gets notionally extended by virtue of this service.”
The Supreme Court held that when a driver when going home from the depot or coming to the depot uses the bus, any accident that happens to him is an accident in the course of his employment.
From Spain, Burgos
I have a strong feeling that the Mrs. Agnes case is more wrongly interpreted than correctly understood. The Supreme Court in notionally extending the liability held that under the Rules of BEST , a bus driver is given the facility in his capacity as its driver to travel in any bus belonging to the undertaking, with a clear intention to enable the driver to keep up punctuality and to discharge his onerous obligations. It is given to him not as a grace, but is of right because efficiency of the service demands it. Therefore the right of a bus driver to travel in the bus in order to discharge his duties punctually and efficiently was a condition of his service and there was an implied obligation on his part to travel in the said buses as a part of his duty.
The Supreme Court also made it clear that while in a case of a factory, the premises of the employer which gives ingress or egress to the factory is a limited one, in the case of a city transport service, by analogy, the entire fleet of buses forming the service would be the "Premises".
So the requirement of the accident happening in the notionally extended employment would be limited to the premises and the employer cannot be made liable for a traffic accident occurring anywhere on the way unless the employee was at the accident spot in discharge of duty.
From India, Mumbai
The Supreme Court also made it clear that while in a case of a factory, the premises of the employer which gives ingress or egress to the factory is a limited one, in the case of a city transport service, by analogy, the entire fleet of buses forming the service would be the "Premises".
So the requirement of the accident happening in the notionally extended employment would be limited to the premises and the employer cannot be made liable for a traffic accident occurring anywhere on the way unless the employee was at the accident spot in discharge of duty.
From India, Mumbai
If You Are Knowledgeable About Any Fact, Resource or Experience Related to This Topic and Want to Be Part of our support system - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR.
The Workmen's Compensation Act 1923.pdf
Workmen's Compensation Act 1923.doc