HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A.No.818 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the order in W.C.No.64 of 2003 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Cuddapah, questioning the liability of the Insurance Company. 2. A claim was made by the claimants consequent on the death of the deceased Nagaraju in a motor accident. The deceased was a driver on the jeep bearing No.AP 04 9880. On 24.04.2002 at about 6.00 A.M., he started from his house to attend his duties at New Sarada English Medium School and when he reached near Utukuru Harijanawada, a double bullock cart came on the road suddenly the deceased could not control and fell down and hit the double bullock cart, as a result of which, he received grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning about Rs.4,000/- per month and the incident was happened in the course of employment and claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The Insurance Company denied the liability that there is no question of employee and employer relationship at the time of incident and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The Commissioner has determined the compensation payable as Rs.2,95,795/- basing on the earning capacity of deceased and also fastened the liability of the Insurance Company. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the incident did not happen when the deceased was discharging his duties in course of employment and consequently, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the quantum of compensation. The Commissioner has relied on a decision reported in General Manager B.E.S.T. undertaking Bombay V. Agnes (1958.65 ACJ 473 (SC)), wherein when the railway employee was going in a train on free pass after discharging duties, he received injuries in the accident, and he was found to be entitled to compensation. The Commissioner also relied on several decisions to come to a conclusion that there is a casual relationship between employment and the nature of the incident and the deceased has not added anything to his own peril. The theory of notional extension of place of employment was accepted and compensation was granted in a decision reported in Rajanna Vs. Union of India[1], so also the above theory was applied in a decision reported in Western Railway Vs. Chandrabai[2]. The fact that the deceased was employee of the New Sarada English Medium School as a driver is also disclosed in the investigation done by the Police and also in the Final Report. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was going for any other purpose rather than the purpose of employment from his house. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the award passed by the Commissioner cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:27.09.2011 INL [1] 1995 (2) LLJ 824 (SC) [2] 1993 (III) L.L.J. 911 (M.P.)