1, Sir, I personally feel that to claim the compensation from employer under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 on the basis of any type of negligence or omission on the part of employer or his contractor or agent (in this case Company Cab) is difficult, though not impossible. Kindly see Proviso to Section 3 of the said Act which creates exceptions and protects the employers in cases of accidents in some situations. The cases are filed in the court of law/authority created under said Act, but the injured employee or his dependents do not get any compensation. The employers put forth so many arguments and evidence in the court to probe the point that at no level the employer was responsible. In case of senior functionaries/officers, another plea is raised that the injured officer was not an "employee" within the meaning of said Act since the definition of "employee" is confined to a list as mentioned in Schedule-II of said Act. If it is proved that the injured officer was not an "employee", then he had no alternative except to file a civil suit for damages/compensation resulting into long procedure etc. Ultimately, it is the injured employee or his dependent who is to suffer.
2. The position is, however, different so far as accidents occurred in respect of such units and their employees who are covered under ESI Act, 1948 and rules/regulations framed thereunder. ESIC pays benefits to the injured/dependents, even though there may be some element of negligence or omission on the part of employee or employer. The main condition is that injured person should be an employee and such accident should have occurred in the course and out of employment. In respect of road accidents, the principle of notional extension of premises and time is applied and in case it is probed that there was no link to probe the accident due to and out of employment, the cases are rejected as that of accident and no compensation is paid. So therefore, in my opinion, the place, time and other factors as raised by Sh. Dinesh Divekar ji in his remarks as above are very relevant and important.
3. Since the initiator of this thread in his comments has not disclosed full facts, hence, in my opinion, Sh. Dinesh Divekar ji has rightly commented in his lengthy remarks as above covering all possible situations. I am contributing in this citeHR since more than one year and has always found the views of Sh. Divekar ji very useful and relevant to the situations as narrated by the initiator of the topic/thread. Though, the initiator of this thread has raised objections to the remarks of Sh. Divekar ji as above, but I am sure as and when he will initiate any action against the employer, he will be required to make his position clear in the court of law or before authority created under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 or in civil suit for damages on all the issues as raised and pointed out by Sh. Dinesh Divekar ji.