Case Note & Summary
The appellant, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., filed an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The respondent No.1, Nandkumari Ajaykumar Tiwari, is the widow of Ajaykumar Tiwari, who was employed by respondent No.2, M/s. Apar Industries Limited, through respondent No.3, M/s. Veetech Consultants, as a Labour Contractor earning Rs.260 per day. On 2nd May, 2007, the deceased left the factory after duty hours and was returning home on a motor cycle as a pillion rider driven by one Pandit Atmaram Patil. It was alleged that a truck came from behind and caused an accident resulting in the death of Ajaykumar Tiwari. The widow claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Commissioner awarded compensation, holding that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The insurance company appealed, arguing that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment as the deceased was returning home after duty hours on his own vehicle. The court analyzed the facts and held that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment because the employer did not provide the vehicle or require the workman to travel by that mode. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - 'Arising out of and in the course of employment' - Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Accident during commute - The court considered whether an injury sustained by a workman while returning home after duty hours on a motor cycle as a pillion rider arises out of and in the course of employment. The court held that since the employer did not provide the vehicle or require the workman to travel by that mode, the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death of a workman in a motor cycle accident while returning home after duty hours can be said to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is set aside. The claim for compensation is dismissed.
Law Points
- Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 3
- 'arising out of and in the course of employment'
- accident during commute
- employer's liability
- motor cycle accident
- pillion rider
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 221
First Appeal No.2193 of 2008
Mr.S.S.Vidyarthi i/b.Mr.S.M.Vidyarthi for the appellant, Mr.T.R.Yadav h/f.Mr.S.S.Pathak for the respondents
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Nandkumari Ajaykumar Tiwari, M/s. Apar Industries Limited, M/s. Veetech Consultants
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation awarding compensation to the widow of a deceased workman.
Remedy Sought
The appellant insurance company sought to set aside the order of the Commissioner awarding compensation.
Filing Reason
The appellant contended that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment.
Previous Decisions
The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation had awarded compensation to the respondent No.1, holding that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment.
Issues
Whether the death of a workman in a motor cycle accident while returning home after duty hours can be said to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment as the deceased was returning home after duty hours on his own vehicle.
The respondents argued that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment.
Ratio Decidendi
An injury sustained by a workman while returning home after duty hours on a motor cycle as a pillion rider does not arise out of and in the course of employment under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, when the employer did not provide the vehicle or require the workman to travel by that mode.
Judgment Excerpts
This is an appeal by the original opponent No.3 - United India Insurance Company Limited under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows.
On 2nd May, 2007 the deceased Ajaykumar Tiwari left the factory after duty hours and was going back home on motor cycle as a pillion rider.
It is alleged that the truck came from behind and caused an accident resulting in the death of Ajaykumar Tiwari.
The court held that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment.
Procedural History
The respondent No.1 filed a claim for compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The Commissioner awarded compensation. The appellant insurance company filed the present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Acts & Sections
- Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: Section 3, Section 30
