Case: LEELA BAI Vs. SEEMA CHOUHAN

2. The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased aggrieved by the rejection of their claim for compensation under the Employee?s Compensation Act, 1923 as amended by the Workmen?s Compensation (Amendment) Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act?). The deceased was a bus driver under respondent no.1. He fell off the roof of the bus accidentally and died.

Reasoning:
In the facts of the case, and the evidence available, it is evident that the deceased was present at the bus terminal and remained with the bus even after arrival from Indore not by choice, but by compulsion and necessity, because of the nature of his duties. The route timings of the bus required the deceased to be readily available with the bus so that the passenger service being provided by respondent no. 1 remained efficient and was not affected. If the deceased would have gone home every day after parking the bus and returned the next morning, the efficiency of the timing of the bus service facility to the travelling public would definitely have been affected, dependant on the arrival of the deceased at the bus stand from his house. Naturally that would bring an element of uncertainty in the departure schedule of the bus and efficiency of the service to the travelling public could be compromised. Adherence to schedule by the deceased would naturally inure to the benefit of respondent no.1 by enhancement of income because of timely service. It is not without reason that the deceased would not go home for weeks as deposed by the appellant. Merely because the deceased was coming down the roof of the bus after having his meal, cannot be considered in isolation and interpreted so myopically to hold that he was off duty and therefore would not be entitled to compensation.8. The deceased did not remain at the bus stand living in the bus as a member of the public or by choice after arrival at Burhanpur till departure for Indore the next morning. It is not the case of the respondent that the deceased was at liberty to proceed home and return at leisure the next morning after parking the bus at the Burhanpur bus stand at night.If the requirement of the deceased to stay with the bus was integrally connected with the efficiency of the service to be provided to the public by respondent no.1 and the deceased was not present at the bus terminal with the bus in his nature as a member of the public by choice, we see no reason why the doctrine of notional extension of the employment will not be applicable.In the facts of the present case and the nature of evidence, there was a clear nexus between the accident and the employment to apply the doctrine of ?notional extension? of the employment