Are Accidents During Travel From Work To Home Covered

One of my friends was injured when leaving work to get to his home. When he reached the main road from his workplace on his two-wheeler after logging off from work to return home, he was hit by a lorry. He is now paralyzed from the neck down.

Will such an accident be covered by the Workmen's Compensation? Kindly advise if there are any court judgments that support the same.

Hi Mr. Babu,

It is a very difficult query for me to answer. However, due to the seriousness of your case, I searched and found that in Sec:03 of the Workmen's Compensation Act-1923. This section states that an employer is liable to pay compensation to a workman for personal injury caused to him by accident as well as for any occupational diseases.

Your said case falls under personal accident. The section further explains that the employer is liable to pay compensation only if personal injury is caused to a workman by an accident ARISING OUT OF and IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT. So, according to this line, your friend's accident may have arisen in the course of employment but not out of employment. Hence, there is no question of employer liability, and therefore, there would be no compensation.

I request other learned members in the group to correct me if there are any mistakes.

With regards,
Mr. Thumbs Up

Already discussed here: https://www.citehr.com/404608-accide...-download.html

Dear Pon1965,

Thanks for the link to the discussion. However, upon reviewing the link, it was noted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Francis d Costa, did not allow the claim on the employer since the transit was to the place of employment. Nevertheless, members like Madhu T.K. had different views. I am unsure if there are other cases that have been ruled differently based on different circumstances. Any help is appreciated.

Thanks.

Dear Mr. Kumaran Praveen,

Thank you for your help. I greatly appreciate your assistance and effort. I will also wait for other members to share their views on the same.

Thanks

Another judgment which says negative: Not payable.

[Link to judgment](http://highcourt.cg.gov.in/Afr/courtJudgementandAFR/2015/aug/MA%28C%291408of2007.pdf)

The accident has arisen while transiting home directly from the office. In my opinion, the theory of the notional extension of the work spot would enable the injured person to claim accident benefits/compensation. Welfare legislations are to be construed in a manner that benefits flow to injured people/beneficiaries. Otherwise, the rule gets so strict that unless a person is injured within the factory/office or going for office-related work, he will not be entitled to compensation.

Is your friend covered under ESI? Wherever the provisions of ESI Act apply, the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act do not apply. If your friend is covered under ESI, ESI will pay dependent benefits to him.

N. LOKANDHA BABU

Hi,

Please check, as there have been amendments to the Employee Compensation Act recently.

Regards,
DBN

It fits into the clause of "notional extension of work." Hence, payable.

Dear Babu,

You can get it under the theory of Notional Extension of WC.

Regards, Dinshan97

Dear Lokandha Babu,

My friend is not covered under ESI.

Dear All,

I have further checked various cases, and a couple of cases by high courts have actually allowed compensation under WC by exactly claiming a notional extension of work as stated by Nathrao and Anonymous.

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. ... Appellant Vs Smt. Suman Devi and another respondent.
2. Divisional Manager, Oriental ... vs Subas Chandra Swain And Anr. on 4 July 2007.

It all depends on the nature of the job. The theory of notional extension cannot be applied in all cases. In general circumstances, the employee has signed off, and there ends the employment contract regulations.

The notional extension theory is applicable in this case, and hence compensation under the Employees' (Workmen) Compensation Act or ESI Act is payable without fail. It may be noted that although the ESI Act contained similar provisions in the past, it disappeared sometime in the 1990s but was reintroduced in the 2010 amendment. Similarly, the Employees' Compensation Act also has the provision of notional extension of time and place. Since this accident has occurred just in front of the office, there is no doubt whether the time and place of the accident could be treated as an extension of the place or time of signing out.

Madhu.T.K