IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 MFA.No. 138 of 2005() --------------------- WCC.312/2000 of WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND OPPOSITE PARTY: --------------------------------- THE MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., CHALAKUDY REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, REGIONAL OFFICE, NORTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, COCHIN-682 018. BY ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT & 1ST OPPOSITE PARTY: ---------------------------------------------- 1. SAJEEV, S/O. MADHAVAN, MULLASSERY HOUSE, RESIDING AT KADUKUTTY DESOM, KALLUR VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, KADUKUTTY P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR. 2. ALBY SIMETHY, S/O. ANTONY SIMETHY, MALLAMAYIPARMBIL HOUSE, ANNANADU P.O. ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY FOR R1 SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH FOR R1 SRI.R.KIRAN FOR R2 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.F.A. No. 138 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner granting compensation to the first respondent and with direction to the appellant to pay the compensation under the policy issued by them to the insured who is the registered owner of the vehicle. The admitted facts are that first respondent after leaving the autorikshaw in the garage of the second respondent was proceeding to his house. While walking on the road he was knocked down by a cyclist and according to him as he was going home after the day's work, he was in the course of employment and was entitled to be compensated under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner Workmen's Compensation following the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the claim with direction to the insurance company to pay 2 the compensation. It is against this award that insurance company has filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Act. We have heard standing counsel appearing for the insurance company and counsel appearing for the first respondent. 2. Counsel for the insurance company relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in ESI CORPORATION V. FRANCIS DE COSTA, (1996) 2 K.L.T. 799 (SC) and that of this Court in TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LTD. V. JERRO, (2000) 1 K.L.T. 643 and contended that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment and so much so the appellant is not liable to pay compensation under the policy issued to the registered owner. Counsel for the first respondent contended that claimant was returning home after leaving the vehicle in the garage of the registered owner and until he reaches home should be treated as engaged in the course of employment, and so much so, the accident happened before reaching home should entitle him for compensation. 3. We do not find there is any scope for our considering the issue independently because the decision of the Supreme Court above 3 referred squarely applies to the facts of this case, because the first respondent suffered injury in the accident after close of employment for the day and it happened only on his way back to his house. Employment in the vehicle commences only when he takes over the vehicle and as and when he leaves the vehicle in the garage of the registered owner, his employment for the day is over, and anything happened subsequently cannot be said to be in the course of employment. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court we allow the appeal by setting aside the award. If amount deposited is not released, the Commissioner will refund it to the appellant, and if released, appellant can recover it. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (HARUN-UL-RASHID) Judge. kk 4