Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923: Theory of notional extension – Victim-deceased was a truck driver – On 11 June 2003, he was driving truck of respondent no.2 from Ambala to Meerut, a distance of 200 Kms – At about 12.30 p.m., he stopped the truck near bridge to fetch water from the canal and also to have bath when he slipped into the canal and died – PW-2 standing near bridge tried to save him but he also slipped in the canal and could not save the deceased – Workman Commissioner granted compensation to LRs of the deceased – However, High Court held that death did not arise out of the employment but was at the peril of the workman as he had gone to fetch water for his personal consumption and it was not case that the truck was over heated – On appeal, held: The deceased was driving the truck of respondent no.2 from Ambala to Meerut – Indisputably he was in the course of his employment – The cabin of the truck was not air conditioned and it would have been a baking oven in the middle of the afternoon in the sultry monsoon heat of June 2003, when the temperature was touching 42.60C in Yamunagar (Haryana) – It was a compulsion for the deceased to stay fresh and alert not only to protect the truck from damage but also to ensure a smooth journey and protect his own life by safe driving – The possibility of the truck also requiring water to prevent overheating could not be completely ruled out – In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the act of the deceased in going to the canal to fetch water for the truck and to refresh himself by a bath before continuing the journey was not incidental to the employment – Every action of the driver of a truck to ensure the safety of the truck belonging to the employer and to ensure his own safety by a safe journey for himself has to be considered as incidental to the employment by extension of the notional employment theory – The application of the theory of notional extension will therefore apply in the facts of the instant case – Order of Commissioner is restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now christened as “Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923”) is a piece of socially beneficial legislation. The provisions will therefore have to be interpreted in a manner to advance the purpose of the legislation, rather than to stultify it. In case of a direct conflict, when no reconciliation is possible, the statutory provision will prevail only then. [Para 7] [925-H; 926-A]
2. The deceased was driving the truck of respondent no.2 from Ambala to Meerut. Indisputably he was in the course of his employment. Considering the manufacturer’s specification, the cabin of the truck was not air conditioned and would have been a baking oven in the middle of the afternoon in the sultry monsoon heat of June 2003, when the temperature was touching 42.60C in Yamunagar (Haryana) (source: weatheronline.in). It was a compulsion for the deceased to stay fresh and alert not only to protect the truck of respondent no.2 from damage but also to ensure a smooth journey and protect his own life by safe driving. The possibility of the truck also requiring water to prevent overheating cannot be completely ruled out. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the act of the deceased in going to the canal to fetch water in a can for the truck and to refresh himself by a bath before continuing the journey was not incidental to the employment. A truck driver who would not keep himself fresh to drive in such heat would be a potential danger to others on the road by reason of any bonafide errors of judgement by reason of the heat. The application of the theory of notional extension will therefore apply in the facts of the present case also. The order of Commissioner is restored. [Paras 11, 13, 15] [927-B-D; 928-G; 929-A]
Manju Sarkar & Ors. v. Mabish Miah & Ors. (2014)
14 SCC 21 : [2014] 6 SCR 126 – relied on.
Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another (2009) 13 SCC 405 : [2009] 2 SCR 320 – distinguished.
Leela Bai and Anr. v. Seema Chouhan and Anr. (2019)
4 SCC 325 ; B.E.S.T. Undertaking v. Agnes, AIR 1964 SC 193 : [1964] 3 SCR 930 ; Daya Kishan Joshi & Anr. v. Dynemech Systems Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 11 SCC 642 : [2017] 7 SCR 587 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.