Employer's Role in Personal Vehicle Accidents: What Happens if an Employee Gets Hurt?

Employer's Responsibility for Employee Accidents

If an employee is coming to duty by a personal vehicle and gets injured in an accident, what is the employer's responsibility?

Regards

Dear Mr. Ansari,

If an employee is coming to duty by a personal vehicle and meets with an accident, the employer needs to take responsibility and compensate. To prevent such mishaps, the employer must take off-site safety precautions for their employees (as they are the most valuable asset):

- Road safety awareness trainings
- Defensive driving training courses
- Allow only those with authorized licenses
- For two-wheelers, helmets are compulsory (ISI Mark)
- Make seat belt usage compulsory
- Conduct vehicle inspections by a safety officer for basic maintenance.

Thanks,
Abhay

I think no company will take the responsibility on them because he/she is not on duty. Secondly, most companies offer GPA (Group Personal Accident) so that if any mishap occurs, employees can utilize the facility.

Thanks,
Deepak

The individual must be covered by Group Personal Accident Insurance. Whether they were coming for duty in a private vehicle or their own vehicle does not matter. If the individual is not covered by the Group Personal Accident policy, then the employer has to bear the expenses.

Regards,
Pranab Chakraborty
[Phone Number Removed For Privacy Reasons]

Employer Responsibility for Accidents

The employer is not responsible for such accidents and related compensation. GPA is not mandatory.

Thank you.

If the employee has not been provided any company's conveyance to report for duty and the route by which the employee concerned was coming for duty is a normal route, then this route is termed as "Notional Extension of duty place." In such cases, the employee is eligible for payment of Employees' Compensation as per the Employees Compensation Act. Though the onus lies upon the employee to prove that the route he was taking to report for duty is the shortest and most convenient route, and this route is generally used by other employees who happen to come from the same or nearby places for duty. In such instances, compensation has been paid, if proven.

Regards,
AK Jain

That's a perfect answer! I appreciate your understanding and expertise with respect to the Employee's Compensation Act and its provisions. Not just an accident while coming to the workplace/office, but even any accident outstation in the company's work is liable for compensation. It does not matter if the vehicle is personal (own vehicle), private (someone's or a friend's vehicle), hired (taxi or a contract carriage), or public transport (bus or train). All companies/industries have to ensure compliance with the Act, including the submission of statutory returns. Sadly, the lack of awareness indicates the level of compliance. The procedure adopted to process such cases for compensation, like the constitution of a (standing) committee, etc., and to inquire into such incidents for the veracity of claims, have also been discussed in certain threads on CiteHR.com.

Warm regards.

There are some cases where the employment of a workman does not commence until he has reached the place of employment. When he has left the place of employment, the journey to and from the place of employment is excluded.

Mummidipalli Syamaladvi v. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 2003 LLR 538, 2003 (97) FLR 372 (AP He).

Please read this Supreme Court judgment wherein the road accident occurred outside the premises and the issue of compensation repudiation was discussed.

The Regional Director, E.S.I. vs. Francis De Costa & Anr on 11 September 1996

You can find more details about the case http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1095646/.

Regards,
Pon, Chennai

I have gone through the case. The case does not repudiate the validity of the PRINCIPLE OF NOTIONAL EXTENSION. Although in that particular case, the claim was rejected.

There are several other cases in which it has been allowed; for example:

Rajanna vs Union Of India on 19 April 1995

Rajanna vs Union Of India on 19 April 1995

wherein the following cases were also cited:

- Cites 4 docs
- The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
- J. K. Synthetics Ltd vs J. K. Synthetics Mazdoor Union on 9 September 1971
- Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing ... vs Bai Valu Raja And Ors. on 28 April 1958
- Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Ibrahim Mahommed Issak on 14 August 1969

Cited by 4 docs:

- Smt. Vandana vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through ... on 14 January 2008
- Dipender Singh (1639/W) vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 October 2008
- General Manager, Prakasham ... vs Pavuralla Santhakumari And Ors. on 24 September 2003
- The Management Of Pannimedu ... vs Chandra on 20 April 1998

Even in the instant case cited, the Theory of Notional Extension has not been denounced but not allowed in this particular case.

Generally, Courts have UNEQUIVOCALLY supported the principle of Notional Extension of employment wherever the Transport facility has been provided by the employer. Only in cases of personal transport or alternate arrangement, there has been ambiguity.

However, the fact stands that ALL good companies have adopted the Principle of Notional Extension; wherein generally 1 hour before duty hours and 1 hour after duty hours, which is normally reckoned as the period of arriving at the workplace, has been covered. The philosophy of such benevolent and employee-friendly companies has been that had it not been for the purpose of duty, the employee would not have been at the place of employment or met with an accident.

One needs to honor such time-tested traditions without going in for Court Cases for each and every matter. For example, nowhere does the Law say that one has to GIVE PROMOTIONS to its employees. Does it mean that the Law BARS promotions? Or, employers NEED NOT give promotions to employees as there is no law that forces employers to give promotions or increments to deserving employees?

It's the choice of the company, whether it chooses to be a good company; and HR has an important role to play in it by having an attitude of employee welfare and motivation, rather than getting praise and personal rewards by cutting such costs.

Warm regards.

I have some queries related to the accident that occurred in the workplace. In the case where an individual has not reported any accident to the Inspector of Factories, even if it occurred 5-6 months ago (ESI not covered), what are all the consequences that follow? Is there a penalty for not reporting, and what are the processes to follow?

Thank you.

Is the employee covered under ESI? Please refer to Section 51-E of the ESI Act regarding accidents occurring while commuting to and from the place of work. An accident happening to an employee while traveling from their residence to the workplace for duty or vice versa, from the workplace to their residence after completing their duty, shall be considered to have occurred out of and during employment if a connection between the circumstances, time, place of the accident, and employment is established.