Dear All,
One of the employees met with an accident while coming to duty. Is it the company's liability to provide compensation in such cases? Is the company responsible for accidents that occur to employees while commuting to and from work? Are there any applicable acts related to this situation?
Thank you.
From India, Jamnagar
One of the employees met with an accident while coming to duty. Is it the company's liability to provide compensation in such cases? Is the company responsible for accidents that occur to employees while commuting to and from work? Are there any applicable acts related to this situation?
Thank you.
From India, Jamnagar
It's upon company policy, I think he is not eligible for this because at that time he left the company, he was not on duty, so he is not eligible for all compensation. But the company should help the employee to the maximum in such cases.
Ayyaz Mehmood
From United Arab Emirates
Ayyaz Mehmood
From United Arab Emirates
Dear Tanvi,
I have experience working with three big companies (i.e., HDFC Bank, Sterlite Industries, and Hindustan Zinc Ltd.). However, there is no provision in any company that makes the company responsible if an employee is coming to work using their own vehicle or arrangement. If the employee is using the company bus, then the company is responsible for compensation as they are taking on the responsibility from the pick-up point. Otherwise, the company is only responsible for any accidents that occur inside the company premises.
I will gather more information and get back to you.
Regards,
Inderjeet Singh "Born to lead"
From India, Rajsamand
I have experience working with three big companies (i.e., HDFC Bank, Sterlite Industries, and Hindustan Zinc Ltd.). However, there is no provision in any company that makes the company responsible if an employee is coming to work using their own vehicle or arrangement. If the employee is using the company bus, then the company is responsible for compensation as they are taking on the responsibility from the pick-up point. Otherwise, the company is only responsible for any accidents that occur inside the company premises.
I will gather more information and get back to you.
Regards,
Inderjeet Singh "Born to lead"
From India, Rajsamand
If the employee is covered by ESI, then he will get accident benefits from ESI Corporation as per the new amendment to the ESI Act, provided the time and route are correct. In case not covered by ESI, then the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act will apply. Under WC Act, an injury during the course of employment only will make the employer liable to pay compensation.
Regards,
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Regards,
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Dear Madhu. T. K., Can you please provide me the latest amendment of ESI. What is the latest limit for funeral expense?
From India, Jamnagar
From India, Jamnagar
Hello Tanvi,
No, there is no situation that would warrant any form of compensation. If he was off duty when the accident occurred or suffered the injury, the company will not be held responsible.
Regards,
Trishul (Abhishek Dongre)
From India, Indore
No, there is no situation that would warrant any form of compensation. If he was off duty when the accident occurred or suffered the injury, the company will not be held responsible.
Regards,
Trishul (Abhishek Dongre)
From India, Indore
Hi,
The employee, on his way back home, met with an accident. Definitely, he is entitled to compensation under the ESI Act, 1948, or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1935. Which one is applicable? Actually, the same situation arose during my professional life, so I'm sharing my experience.
If any employee, during his way to the company or vice versa, meets with an accident, they are liable for compensation.
With Regards,
Surender Bisht
From India, Delhi
The employee, on his way back home, met with an accident. Definitely, he is entitled to compensation under the ESI Act, 1948, or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1935. Which one is applicable? Actually, the same situation arose during my professional life, so I'm sharing my experience.
If any employee, during his way to the company or vice versa, meets with an accident, they are liable for compensation.
With Regards,
Surender Bisht
From India, Delhi
Okay, dear friends, let's have a discussion. If the employee is provided transportation by the company to go back home, and in the case that the bus meets with an accident, is the employee eligible for compensation or not?
From India, Delhi
From India, Delhi
Dear Tanvi,
Please read the caselet: [ESI 97-98 / 99](http://nipmkerala.org) (*link updated to site home*). ([Search On Cite](https://www.citehr.com/results.php?q=ESI%2097%2098%2099) | [Search On Google](https://www.google.com/search?q=ESI%2097%2098%2099))
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESI VS FRANCIS DECOSTA [1996 (74) FLR 2326 SC-D.B.] is the famous SC judgment in Best v. Mrs. Agnes of 1964 (3) SCR 930 on "national extension of premises" on accidents occurring outside the factory premises at public places still valid? The scope of the Best case of 1964 has been considerably watered down. Now, compensation for accidents happening outside the establishment premises can be claimed only if the injured was on the company transport or the injured was on the public place as part of his duties.
Hope you would have clarity!
Many Thanks,
George
From India, Bangalore
Please read the caselet: [ESI 97-98 / 99](http://nipmkerala.org) (*link updated to site home*). ([Search On Cite](https://www.citehr.com/results.php?q=ESI%2097%2098%2099) | [Search On Google](https://www.google.com/search?q=ESI%2097%2098%2099))
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESI VS FRANCIS DECOSTA [1996 (74) FLR 2326 SC-D.B.] is the famous SC judgment in Best v. Mrs. Agnes of 1964 (3) SCR 930 on "national extension of premises" on accidents occurring outside the factory premises at public places still valid? The scope of the Best case of 1964 has been considerably watered down. Now, compensation for accidents happening outside the establishment premises can be claimed only if the injured was on the company transport or the injured was on the public place as part of his duties.
Hope you would have clarity!
Many Thanks,
George
From India, Bangalore
Hi Tanvi,
The company is not entitled to any compensation in any circumstances as the employee was not on duty. An accident policy is always available for every employee, from which they can benefit. There are 2 conditions: if the gross is less than 15000/-, the employee will be covered under ESI. If the gross is more than 15000/-, the medical expenses will be covered by the insurance company or can be reimbursed.
From India, Bangalore
The company is not entitled to any compensation in any circumstances as the employee was not on duty. An accident policy is always available for every employee, from which they can benefit. There are 2 conditions: if the gross is less than 15000/-, the employee will be covered under ESI. If the gross is more than 15000/-, the medical expenses will be covered by the insurance company or can be reimbursed.
From India, Bangalore
Dear Tanvi,
The amount for funeral cases under the ESIC Act is ₹5000 as per the new amendment. Previously, it was ₹3000.
The latest amendment under ESIC is the enhancement of the ceiling from ₹10,000 to ₹15,000 for coverage under the ESIC Act.
Regards,
Mohan
From India, Mumbai
The amount for funeral cases under the ESIC Act is ₹5000 as per the new amendment. Previously, it was ₹3000.
The latest amendment under ESIC is the enhancement of the ceiling from ₹10,000 to ₹15,000 for coverage under the ESIC Act.
Regards,
Mohan
From India, Mumbai
Dear Friends,
If the accident took place while coming in the company's vehicle, the Management has to provide him the medical treatment, etc. The ESI law is very clear. If the accident took place at the workplace only, he gets benefits. I had experience with ESI authorities in this regard. In case the employee is out of premises, and if he is on duty (like marketing personnel), he is eligible for benefits from ESI.
Many companies have policies to provide benefits to their employees in such cases on humanitarian grounds.
G.K. Manjunath
Manager-HR
From India, Bangalore
If the accident took place while coming in the company's vehicle, the Management has to provide him the medical treatment, etc. The ESI law is very clear. If the accident took place at the workplace only, he gets benefits. I had experience with ESI authorities in this regard. In case the employee is out of premises, and if he is on duty (like marketing personnel), he is eligible for benefits from ESI.
Many companies have policies to provide benefits to their employees in such cases on humanitarian grounds.
G.K. Manjunath
Manager-HR
From India, Bangalore
I have no idea about this, but the company should help their family in:
1. Getting ESI Compensation (if he is covered under ESI).
2. Getting PF (if he is covered under PF).
3. Getting Gratuity along with death claim (if he is covered under Gratuity).
His family will also get accident claim insurance against the insurance of the vehicle which hit him.
I am mentioning all these because you must be familiar with practical matters, or perhaps you have seen the movie "Munna Bhai MBBS," where a retired school teacher struggles to get his PF.
Regards,
Modi Ashok Kumar
From India, Bangalore
1. Getting ESI Compensation (if he is covered under ESI).
2. Getting PF (if he is covered under PF).
3. Getting Gratuity along with death claim (if he is covered under Gratuity).
His family will also get accident claim insurance against the insurance of the vehicle which hit him.
I am mentioning all these because you must be familiar with practical matters, or perhaps you have seen the movie "Munna Bhai MBBS," where a retired school teacher struggles to get his PF.
Regards,
Modi Ashok Kumar
From India, Bangalore
Hi,
If your view of "Compensation" is related to providing a lump sum amount to the employee in the event of a road accident, my answer is "NO". However, as per the organization's rules where an employee is employed, the organization should bear the medical expenses arising from the accident.
Ajeet Kumar
From India, Mumbai
If your view of "Compensation" is related to providing a lump sum amount to the employee in the event of a road accident, my answer is "NO". However, as per the organization's rules where an employee is employed, the organization should bear the medical expenses arising from the accident.
Ajeet Kumar
From India, Mumbai
Hi all,
If the employee has been traveling in the company-provided transportation, then I think the company is responsible. This is my statement since the statutory authorities have clarified that the duty starts when the employee boards the company-provided transportation.
If the employee is not traveling in the company-provided transportation, the company is not legally bound.
Good luck!
Regards,
Dhinakaran
From India, Hyderabad
If the employee has been traveling in the company-provided transportation, then I think the company is responsible. This is my statement since the statutory authorities have clarified that the duty starts when the employee boards the company-provided transportation.
If the employee is not traveling in the company-provided transportation, the company is not legally bound.
Good luck!
Regards,
Dhinakaran
From India, Hyderabad
Hello Everyone,
As per my knowledge, the "Workmen's Compensation Act 1923" will provide compensation to this employee. The WC Act extends the employee security rule and states (theory of notional extension) that an employer is liable for injury to his workman even when the workman is away from the premises at the time of the accident. This theory was laid down by the Supreme Court in Saurashtra Salt Mfg. Co Vs. Bai Valu Raja.
Please refer to the attached PowerPoint presentation.
Regards, Jyoti HR Executive.
From India, Hyderabad
As per my knowledge, the "Workmen's Compensation Act 1923" will provide compensation to this employee. The WC Act extends the employee security rule and states (theory of notional extension) that an employer is liable for injury to his workman even when the workman is away from the premises at the time of the accident. This theory was laid down by the Supreme Court in Saurashtra Salt Mfg. Co Vs. Bai Valu Raja.
Please refer to the attached PowerPoint presentation.
Regards, Jyoti HR Executive.
From India, Hyderabad
Dear,
The law is more favorable to the employee. The earlier replies would confirm the coverage under ESI and W.C. Apart from that, companies take out a Personal Accident cover, and if the company has taken it, then it is fine. Additionally, depending on the nature of the accident, if it is a collision case and another vehicle is involved, he can make a third-party claim against the insurer of the other vehicle. So many options are there. The strict rule of "in the course of employment" has been extended "to and fro" from the workplace.
With Regards,
E-mail: rajanassociates@eth.net
Mobile: 9025792684.
From India, Bangalore
The law is more favorable to the employee. The earlier replies would confirm the coverage under ESI and W.C. Apart from that, companies take out a Personal Accident cover, and if the company has taken it, then it is fine. Additionally, depending on the nature of the accident, if it is a collision case and another vehicle is involved, he can make a third-party claim against the insurer of the other vehicle. So many options are there. The strict rule of "in the course of employment" has been extended "to and fro" from the workplace.
With Regards,
E-mail: rajanassociates@eth.net
Mobile: 9025792684.
From India, Bangalore
Yes, I believe it is essential for an organization to take care of employees for them to come home safe and reach the office safely. In case of any accidents, the company has to provide compensation. If there is any permanent disability or death, the company should offer job opportunities for the spouse or children to support the family. I have a friend who met with a fatal accident in Hyderabad while working for one of the biggest computer companies. They provided him with full compensation for medical bills and also took care of his medical treatment, including medicines, for a year.
From Singapore
From Singapore
Dear tanvi Recently there is ammendment in ESI rules, If the employee who have met accident covered under ESI then he gets benefits from it. ESI now cover while commuting to work.
From India, Chandigarh
From India, Chandigarh
Hi, As per the Act if employee is traveling via Company’s provided vehicle during his course of employment then it is responsibility of employer to give compensation.
From Germany, Duisburg
From Germany, Duisburg
Dear all Notional extnsion will be applicable and the employee will getthe compensesation. n.e is applicable both ESI & WC The distance cover is 10 km between work place and home Regards Subhas
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear Friends,
To make it clear, I will give three examples:
Company A provided a bus to all of their employees for pick-up and dropping off of their employees. If any accident occurred to the bus during the journey, the employer is responsible.
Mr. X, who is working in Company A, goes to the office by bike, met with an accident, and suffered major injuries - the employer is not responsible.
Mr. Y, working as a Marketing executive in Company A, met with an accident and died while going to meet a client - the employer is responsible.
Regards,
Rajendra Prasad
From India, Warangal
To make it clear, I will give three examples:
Company A provided a bus to all of their employees for pick-up and dropping off of their employees. If any accident occurred to the bus during the journey, the employer is responsible.
Mr. X, who is working in Company A, goes to the office by bike, met with an accident, and suffered major injuries - the employer is not responsible.
Mr. Y, working as a Marketing executive in Company A, met with an accident and died while going to meet a client - the employer is responsible.
Regards,
Rajendra Prasad
From India, Warangal
In my opinion, "out of and in the course of his employment" includes the journey to the office and back home. Reproduced below is the phrase from the Workmen's Compensation Act:
Employer's Liability For Compensation
1. The employer of any establishment covered under this Act is required to compensate an employee:
Who has suffered an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, resulting in (i) death, (ii) permanent total disablement, (iii) permanent partial disablement, or (iv) temporary disablement whether total or partial, or
2. Who has contracted an occupational disease.
HOWEVER, THE EMPLOYER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE
1. In respect of any injury that does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workmen for a period exceeding three days;
2. In respect of any injury not resulting in death, caused by an accident directly attributable to:
i) the workmen having been at the time under the influence of drugs, or
ii) the willful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or
iii) the willful removal or disregard by the workmen of any safeguard or other device which he knew was provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen.
The burden of proving intentional disobedience on the part of the employee shall lie upon the employer.
iv) when the employee has contracted a disease not directly attributable to a specific injury caused by the accident or to the occupation; or
v) when the employee has filed a suit for damages against the employer or any other person in a Civil Court.
Regards,
HC Nagar
From India, New Delhi
Employer's Liability For Compensation
1. The employer of any establishment covered under this Act is required to compensate an employee:
Who has suffered an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, resulting in (i) death, (ii) permanent total disablement, (iii) permanent partial disablement, or (iv) temporary disablement whether total or partial, or
2. Who has contracted an occupational disease.
HOWEVER, THE EMPLOYER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE
1. In respect of any injury that does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workmen for a period exceeding three days;
2. In respect of any injury not resulting in death, caused by an accident directly attributable to:
i) the workmen having been at the time under the influence of drugs, or
ii) the willful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or
iii) the willful removal or disregard by the workmen of any safeguard or other device which he knew was provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen.
The burden of proving intentional disobedience on the part of the employee shall lie upon the employer.
iv) when the employee has contracted a disease not directly attributable to a specific injury caused by the accident or to the occupation; or
v) when the employee has filed a suit for damages against the employer or any other person in a Civil Court.
Regards,
HC Nagar
From India, New Delhi
Dear Tanvi,
I worked on your question and after discussing with legal personnel, I came to know that when a person "starts from his home and leaves company for his home", this time period is called "during the course of employment" as per ESI act. And that person you are talking about is entitled to get all compensations as per ESI act. (Kindly ignore my first answer as practically I never faced this kind of cases.)
Regards,
Inderjeet Singh "Born to lead"
From India, Rajsamand
I worked on your question and after discussing with legal personnel, I came to know that when a person "starts from his home and leaves company for his home", this time period is called "during the course of employment" as per ESI act. And that person you are talking about is entitled to get all compensations as per ESI act. (Kindly ignore my first answer as practically I never faced this kind of cases.)
Regards,
Inderjeet Singh "Born to lead"
From India, Rajsamand
Dear sir,
There was a provision of responsibility of the employer to compensate if a worker meets with an accident while coming or going from the factory by a legitimate route to and from his residence. However, there was a lot of misuse, and a Supreme Court judgment was passed in which "to and fro" was removed as a basis of compensation in the Fys act.
You may search in Supreme Court judgments.
E R Rao
From India, Calcutta
There was a provision of responsibility of the employer to compensate if a worker meets with an accident while coming or going from the factory by a legitimate route to and from his residence. However, there was a lot of misuse, and a Supreme Court judgment was passed in which "to and fro" was removed as a basis of compensation in the Fys act.
You may search in Supreme Court judgments.
E R Rao
From India, Calcutta
I feel very bad. Get well soon. God bless you.
An incident happened when he was going to the office. Every company provides insurance facilities to their employees for accidents. All these facilities depend on the company's criteria, but insurance is compulsory. What you need to do is approach the HR department.
From India, Mumbai
An incident happened when he was going to the office. Every company provides insurance facilities to their employees for accidents. All these facilities depend on the company's criteria, but insurance is compulsory. What you need to do is approach the HR department.
From India, Mumbai
Dear All, Can any one share me the calculation of deduction of Workmen Compensatation Act? For Employee? For Employer? What will be the ceilling.
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
It is not a sharing fund, but whatever compensation is payable under the Workmen's (Employees) Compensation Act is to be borne only by the employer, and nothing is deducted from the salary of the employee(s).
Regards,
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Regards,
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Dear friends,
Please give the right suggestions to those who need your help. If you are not confident in what you are writing, please do not comment. This can lead to a lot of confusion for the person who is already in pain.
If the establishment in which the employee was injured or deceased is covered under PF, when a person meets with an accident on the way to work or vice versa, it is considered as a death while in service and the employee's dependents are eligible for insurance under Form 5 IF. Similarly, if the establishment is covered under ESI, the same applies. Kindly obtain the correct information from the concerned department and avail the appropriate benefits.
From India, Bangalore
Please give the right suggestions to those who need your help. If you are not confident in what you are writing, please do not comment. This can lead to a lot of confusion for the person who is already in pain.
If the establishment in which the employee was injured or deceased is covered under PF, when a person meets with an accident on the way to work or vice versa, it is considered as a death while in service and the employee's dependents are eligible for insurance under Form 5 IF. Similarly, if the establishment is covered under ESI, the same applies. Kindly obtain the correct information from the concerned department and avail the appropriate benefits.
From India, Bangalore
Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.