Is Your Employer Liable for Accidents During Your Commute? Seeking Legal Insights

Compensation for Accidents During Commute

I need to know whether an employer is bound to give compensation if an employee is involved in an accident while coming to or going off duty. Could you please provide any relevant court judgments on this matter?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Raj

Dear Harikrishnan,

Thank you for your question. As Raj is from Maharashtra, I would assume it is with reference to India. Since I am based in the UK, I can provide some general information through links. It would be helpful to hear your perspective assuming the query was related to India.

Regards,

With reference to your query, this case will come under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which states that if personal injury is caused to a workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions.

As per the above statement, the case would be analyzed further into the extent of the accident, i.e.,

- In respect of any injury that does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days;
- In respect of any injury not resulting in death or permanent total disablement caused by an accident that is directly attributable to this calculation. This is based on a formula, and the sheet is available with the labor department.

For more details, you can get in touch at [Email Removed For Privacy Reasons].

Regards,
DEV

Accidents happening while coming to the office or going back from the office to the place of residence will be treated as accidents during the course of employment. This makes the employer or the ESI Corporation (if the employee is covered by ESI), as the case may be, liable to compensate, provided the time and place equate. That is, if the accident has taken place at a place on the route from the office to the place of his residence and during the normal time of his commute to or from the office, then he will receive benefits considering a notional extension of the time and place of the accident.

Regards,
Madhu.T.K

I am uploading a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India on the subject under discussion in this thread. Though the judgment is under the ESI Act, the principles laid down are applicable to cases under the Employees' Compensation Act as well. The judgment is available on the website of the Honourable Supreme Court of India.

With regards,

Whatever my friends above have replied to is very much apt, but the only thing is the employee has to prove that he was coming to the workplace and going home from the workplace without stopping in between for more than a reasonable time. This has been reflected in many Supreme Court and High Court decisions in India.

For example, if I am a worker and I leave my workplace at 5 pm, I do not go directly home but instead, I stop at a movie theater to watch a movie. From there, I head home and unfortunately, I meet with an accident. Is the employer liable to pay compensation?

In another scenario, if I stop at a restaurant or bar to consume alcohol and later meet with an accident, can I still claim?

In Case 3, if I stay back at my relative's place and then head home, am I still liable?

In Case 4, if my shift ends at 5 pm and I am not required or permitted to stay back at my workplace, but I choose to stay there playing cards with my co-workers until around 8 pm, am I liable?

What if I stop to buy a cool drink from a shop on my way home? (In this case, I can claim...)

So, I hope you now have an idea about the scenarios. Also, when he is liable for compensation, it implies that he is also liable to claim from his insurance unless exempted under the act.

Regarding a reasonable period, there is no fixed amount of time; it is left to the discretion of the court and seems reasonable in the view of individuals in normal circumstances.

Regards,

BSSV

"Yath bhavati tath nashyathi - Whatever is created will be destroyed! Creation is inevitably followed by destruction."

I endorse the views expressed by BSSV on the matter. The test to be applied is whether the injured employee was at the accident site in the capacity of being an employee or otherwise. In other words, was he there because of his employment or was he just like anyone else? The employer would be liable under the EC Act if and only if the accident has occurred out of and in the course of employment. There could be a notional extension with respect to time and place for the expression during the course of employment, but equally important, it has to arise out of employment. The cited ruling of Francis D Costa lays down the principle.

We have successfully defended a matter where a murder took place inside the factory compound during dinner recess. If the accident while commuting is included for compensation, then there would be no end to the stretching of the limit because there could be no definite beginning or end to the employment term. The examples quoted by BSSV are a pointer with long-distance commuting becoming now a reality; otherwise, the misuse or abuse would be endless.

However, where the transport is provided by the employer or where the employer has sent the employee on an errand and he met with the accident in discharge of his duties, then of course the employer is liable. Hope the above clarifies. If more details are available, we can derive a definite conclusion on the basis of the above principles.

Regards

The employer's liability to pay compensation hinges on the key question of whether the accident caused to the employee can be said to be arising out of and in the course of employment. In order to construe an accident to be arising out of and in the course of employment, the accident should have a nexus with employment. It means that the employee could not have been involved in the accident but for his employment. Since an employee who is traveling to or from the workplace (from home or to home) cannot be said to be on duty, it is a tricky issue whether an accident occurring on such travel can really be said to be arising out of employment. To resolve this issue, the courts applied the doctrine of "notional extension" principle to verify whether the employer's time and premises can be extended to the time and place of the accident. In arriving at the conclusion, various factors of deviation as those mentioned by BSSV and KKNair, as well as factors like whether he is commuting by the employer's vehicle or on his personal vehicle, etc., will have to be gone into. You can apply these guidelines and the Francis D. Costa case to arrive at a decision on the matter.

Regards,
B. Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Advisor
Mumbai
[Phone Number Removed For Privacy Reasons]

Now the question that comes to my mind is that in Mumbai, there are millions of people traveling daily to and from their workstations. Many accidents occur, such as train/bus accidents, bomb incidents, etc. In this case, is the employer obligated to provide compensation?

Regards,
Raj

Well, that's a good question. An employee can claim compensation if they can prove that the incident occurred "beyond their control." This means the employee had no prior knowledge of the event, no means of avoiding it, and it was entirely not due to the employee's fault or negligence, particularly in the case of individual accidents.

In the scenario of public accidents, the employer is not held liable as it falls under a different category. For example, in cases involving railways, the railway authority would be responsible, and in incidents like bomb blasts, the government would bear the responsibility. The employer is not solely responsible for providing compensation. However, the employee may still be able to claim through their insurance policy, especially if the HR policy allows for such generosity.

Regarding your specific situation, as an employee who was required to stay beyond the usual working hours by your employer and a railway accident occurred while you were on your way home, the question of liability arises. Are you entitled to hold your employer responsible because they kept you at work longer than usual, resulting in you being caught up in the accident on your way home? It's something worth considering.

I hope this clarifies the situation for you.

Employee Compensation Based on ESI Coverage

It is completely based on whether the employee is under ESI coverage or not. If he is covered, there is no need for the employer to pay the compensation. If not, it works as per the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Regards

I am of the opinion that although there is a notional extension regarding 'arising during the course of duty,' it fails the test of arising out of duty. Where the employee was at the place of the accident not for discharging duties but in a personal capacity, there cannot be any liability on the employer.

Regards,
KK

Accidents cannot be classified as accidents "beyond control" and accidents "within control." An event is called an accident only when it happens suddenly, without the knowledge and beyond the power of the victim. For an event to be an accident, it must be unpredictable. Therefore, an accident will always be "beyond the control" of the victim.

To decide the entitlement of the employee within the four corners of the Employee Compensation Act, what is required to be seen is whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, even by the application of the principle of notional extension, and whether the employee has contributed to the accident, i.e., was negligent or could have avoided it if he had been careful. Even if the employer detained him beyond his scheduled working hours and thereafter he met with an accident on his way home, his entitlement to compensation will still be disputable, assuming that the employer offered him transport to drop him at home, which he normally takes daily, but he refused and chose to go on his own by a local train which met with an accident.

Thus, there will be innumerable intervening factors that can affect the employee's rights to compensation. Each case needs to be judged on its merits, and there cannot be one general answer since the Act does not provide a general solution.

Regards,
B. Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Advisor
Mumbai

Yeah, we have already discussed that. You may refer to the previous discussions (also illustrated)...

Dear Saikumar,

Accidents cannot be classified as accidents "beyond control" and accidents "within control." An event is called an accident only when it happens suddenly, without knowledge, and beyond the power of the victim. An event, to be an accident, shall be unpredictable. Therefore, an accident will always be "beyond the control" of the victim. To decide the entitlement of the employee within the four corners of the Employee Compensation Act, what is required to be seen is whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, even by the application of the principle of notional extension, and whether the employee has contributed to the accident, i.e., was negligent or whether he could have avoided it had he been careful. Even if the employer detained him beyond his scheduled working hours and thereafter he met with an accident on his way home, his entitlement to compensation will still be disputable, assuming that the employer offered him transport to drop him at home, which he normally takes daily, but he refused and chose to go on his own by a local train, which met with an accident. Thus, there will be innumerable intervening factors that can affect the employee's rights to compensation. Each case needs to be judged on its merits, and there cannot be one general answer since the Act does not provide a general solution.

B. Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Advisor
Mumbai

Dear Saikumar,

"Beyond the control" doesn't mean you could have had control over the event; it implies that you must prove it was an accident without your contribution to it (contributory negligence, as we call it in legal terms). It's discussed already, in fact, in layman's language. And yeah, each case differs based on its facts and circumstances and has to be dealt with accordingly. Factual and legal interpretations differ, as you have clearly said that the Act does not provide exact solutions.

Thank you

It has nothing to do with the ESI coverage. Mr. Saikumar has discussed it well; you may refer to that. If the official duty is proved for which the employee was delayed, he may claim his compensation. When he can claim his compensation, then his insurance too. These kinds of cases usually depend on the 'established facts and circumstances'.

The Workmen's Compensation Act clearly holds the employer liable for compensation to the employee who met with an accident if the accident has arisen during the course and arising out of employment. Accordingly, there is a notional extension of the premises of the employer en route to the employee's house from his workplace by the direct and usual route. The ESI judgment will also support this contention.

Regards,
S.K. Johri

I once again state that the notional extension theory will apply in such cases. The amendments to the ESI Act in 2010 also included this notional extension. Similarly, there are cases in which the courts have decided that accidents occurring while commuting to and from the office are considered accidents during the course of employment, provided the place and time of the accident equate. Please refer to the Tamil Nadu State Road Corporation Ltd Vs Smt. Sivakumari & Ors [LLN(1) 2010 (P) 414 (Madras HC)].

Regards,
Madhu.T.K

I am 62 years old. My son was a sales officer in an MNC company. He got injured in an accident while returning to his headquarters after working at an external station. He remained in the ICU for 21 days and passed away on the 2nd of August 2011. The company claims that he settled his account by collecting and paying personal, group, and mediclaim insurance amounts. However, the amounts paid as insurance and mediclaim were insufficient to cover the actual expenses incurred during treatment. The family was entirely dependent on him. Now, I am suffering.

Please suggest to me the appropriate action I should take within the provisions of the Compensation Act to claim appropriate compensation.

Please respond to this.

Thanks

Regards

Our condolences. I would suggest that you file a complaint before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner with relevant details such as the name of the employee, establishment, age of the deceased, salary, etc. From your post, it is not clear whether the policy was purely mediclaim or a policy under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Anyway, the matter will be decided by the Commissioner after hearing the employer.

Regards,
Madhu.T.K

I first want to write a letter to the employer demanding compensation under the provision of the act. Please guide me in this.

Yes, you need to demand payment of compensation from the employer before approaching the EC Commissioner. This is a requirement under Section 10 of the Employees' Compensation Act 1923. The notice shall state the name and address of the person injured, the cause of injury, and the date on which the accident happened. It shall be served either by registered post or personal delivery at the office, residence, or place of business.

Regards,
KK

This depends on the situation and varies from case to case. Whenever an accident occurs in any industry, certain questions arise, and based on those questions, we must proceed. First of all, it is essential for HR personnel to have knowledge of two acts: the Compensation Act and the ESI Act.

I'm working with an IT organization. I wanted to ask a question. If an employee gets injured during working hours on office premises, is the employer liable to pay the medical expenses for the same? Also, what about the leaves taken on those days by the employee for rest (as advised by a doctor), if there is no provision for sick leave? There is only CL (8) & PL (21) available for the employee. Kindly help me out with the same ASAP. I would also like to know if there is a law for the same or anything in writing from the government.

Employer Liability for Workplace Injuries

As far as my knowledge goes and what I have heard from my friends, the employer is to bear the medical expenses, and the leaves are paid leaves, which are not deducted from CL or PL.

Attribution https://www.citehr.com/20493-employe...#ixzz2QcMKSW1R

Regards.

The employer is liable to bear the medical expenses and allow him leave with pay without deducting it from the leave to his credit.

Regards,
Madhu.T.K

The judgment referred to in the WC Case Francis D. Costa document is against the injured person, which contradicts the opinion expressed by Mr. Madhu T.K. I request Mr. Harikrishnan to review it and provide a Supreme Court judgment favoring the injured workman.

Kesava Panda.

It is once again reiterated that Mr. Madhu T.K. reaffirmed notional extension in favor of the injured person but referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court different from his, saying "Tamil Nadu State Road Corporation Ltd Vs Smt. Sivakumari & Ors [LLN(1) 2010 (P) 414 (Madras HC)]." It is requested to refer to a suitable judgment in favor of the injured person on notional extension.

One of my brothers met with an accident and died while going to the company around 5 AM, but his shift started at 6 AM. He was the only son in his family and the breadwinner for them. His parents have asked the company for some compensation, but the company rejected it, stating that the accident occurred outside of company premises, so they are not liable to pay anything. Does this situation fall under the ECA (Employee Compensation Act)? Can his parents receive compensation from the company since there is no one else to take care of them?

Please suggest what actions they can take.

Dear All,

Regarding construction workers, if a vehicle is involved in an accident while going to or coming back from the site, do the employees or any third person fall under the Workers' Compensation (WC) policy? Is there a defined timeframe for the policy's applicability? For example, if a contractor's site vehicle leaves the office and gets into an accident after two hours, would it still be covered by WC even if the vehicle was being used for personal reasons at the time of the accident?

Thank you.

If the vehicle was used for personal use at the time of the accident, how can Workers' Compensation be applicable? Let them claim under MACT.