Dear All,
I need to know whether an employer is bound to give compensation if an employee is involved in an accident while coming to or going off duty. Could you please provide any relevant court judgments on this matter?
Thanks in advance.
Raj
From India
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
25I need to know whether an employer is bound to give compensation if an employee is involved in an accident while coming to or going off duty. Could you please provide any relevant court judgments on this matter?
Thanks in advance.
Raj
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It all depends upon your contract of employment and scope of work. If you were commuting to work from home, I am afraid you are not entitled. Please see <link outdated-removed> (Search On Cite | Search On Google) and Accidents Will Happen | Human Resource Executive Online
Found at Google
From United Kingdom
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Found at Google
From United Kingdom
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr.Raj Is your query related to Indian laws or the laws of other countries? With regards
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Harikrishnan,
Thank you for your question. As Raj is from Maharashtra, I would assume it is with reference to India. Since I am based in the UK, I can provide some general information through links. It would be helpful to hear your perspective assuming the query was related to India.
From United Kingdom
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you for your question. As Raj is from Maharashtra, I would assume it is with reference to India. Since I am based in the UK, I can provide some general information through links. It would be helpful to hear your perspective assuming the query was related to India.
From United Kingdom
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Raj,
With reference to your query, this case will come under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which states that if personal injury is caused to a workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions.
As per the above statement, the case would be analyzed further into the extent of the accident, i.e.,
(a) In respect of any injury that does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days;
(b) In respect of any injury not resulting in death or permanent total disablement caused by an accident that is directly attributable to this calculation. This is based on a formula, and the sheet is available with the labor department.
For more details, you can get in touch at cheers2life@gmail.com.
Regards,
DEV
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
With reference to your query, this case will come under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which states that if personal injury is caused to a workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions.
As per the above statement, the case would be analyzed further into the extent of the accident, i.e.,
(a) In respect of any injury that does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days;
(b) In respect of any injury not resulting in death or permanent total disablement caused by an accident that is directly attributable to this calculation. This is based on a formula, and the sheet is available with the labor department.
For more details, you can get in touch at cheers2life@gmail.com.
Regards,
DEV
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Accidents happening while coming to the office or going back from the office to the place of residence will be treated as accidents during the course of employment. This makes the employer or the ESI Corporation (if the employee is covered by ESI), as the case may be, liable to compensate, provided the time and place equate. That is, if the accident has taken place at a place on the route from the office to the place of his residence and during the normal time of his commute to or from the office, then he will receive benefits considering a notional extension of the time and place of the accident.
Regards, Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Regards, Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
I am uploading a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India on the subject under discussion in this thread. Though the judgment is under the ESI Act, the principles laid down are applicable to cases under the Employees' Compensation Act as well. The judgment is available on the website of the Honourable Supreme Court of India.
With regards,
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am uploading a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India on the subject under discussion in this thread. Though the judgment is under the ESI Act, the principles laid down are applicable to cases under the Employees' Compensation Act as well. The judgment is available on the website of the Honourable Supreme Court of India.
With regards,
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Raj,
Whatever my friends above have replied to is very much apt, but the only thing is the employee has to prove that he was coming to the workplace and going home from the workplace without stopping in between for more than a reasonable time. This has been reflected in many Supreme Court and High Court decisions in India.
For example, if I am a worker and I leave my workplace at 5 pm, I do not go directly home but instead, I stop at a movie theater to watch a movie. From there, I head home and unfortunately, I meet with an accident. Is the employer liable to pay compensation?
In another scenario, if I stop at a restaurant or bar to consume alcohol and later meet with an accident, can I still claim?
In Case 3, if I stay back at my relative's place and then head home, am I still liable?
In Case 4, if my shift ends at 5 pm and I am not required or permitted to stay back at my workplace, but I choose to stay there playing cards with my co-workers until around 8 pm, am I liable?
What if I stop to buy a cool drink from a shop on my way home? (In this case, I can claim...)
So, I hope you now have an idea about the scenarios. Also, when he is liable for compensation, it implies that he is also liable to claim from his insurance unless exempted under the act.
Regarding a reasonable period, there is no fixed amount of time; it is left to the discretion of the court and seems reasonable in the view of individuals in normal circumstances.
Regards,
BSSV
"Yath bhavati tath nashyathi - Whatever is created will be destroyed! Creation is inevitably followed by destruction."
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Whatever my friends above have replied to is very much apt, but the only thing is the employee has to prove that he was coming to the workplace and going home from the workplace without stopping in between for more than a reasonable time. This has been reflected in many Supreme Court and High Court decisions in India.
For example, if I am a worker and I leave my workplace at 5 pm, I do not go directly home but instead, I stop at a movie theater to watch a movie. From there, I head home and unfortunately, I meet with an accident. Is the employer liable to pay compensation?
In another scenario, if I stop at a restaurant or bar to consume alcohol and later meet with an accident, can I still claim?
In Case 3, if I stay back at my relative's place and then head home, am I still liable?
In Case 4, if my shift ends at 5 pm and I am not required or permitted to stay back at my workplace, but I choose to stay there playing cards with my co-workers until around 8 pm, am I liable?
What if I stop to buy a cool drink from a shop on my way home? (In this case, I can claim...)
So, I hope you now have an idea about the scenarios. Also, when he is liable for compensation, it implies that he is also liable to claim from his insurance unless exempted under the act.
Regarding a reasonable period, there is no fixed amount of time; it is left to the discretion of the court and seems reasonable in the view of individuals in normal circumstances.
Regards,
BSSV
"Yath bhavati tath nashyathi - Whatever is created will be destroyed! Creation is inevitably followed by destruction."
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
I endorse the views expressed by BSSV on the matter. The test to be applied is whether the injured employee was at the accident site in the capacity of being an employee or otherwise. In other words, was he there because of his employment or was he just like anyone else? The employer would be liable under the EC Act if and only if the accident has occurred out of and in the course of employment. There could be a notional extension with respect to time and place for the expression during the course of employment, but equally important, it has to arise out of employment. The cited ruling of Francis D Costa lays down the principle. We have successfully defended a matter where a murder took place inside the factory compound during dinner recess. If the accident while commuting is included for compensation, then there would be no end to the stretching of the limit because there could be no definite beginning or end to the employment term. The examples quoted by BSSV are a pointer with long-distance commuting becoming now a reality; otherwise, the misuse or abuse would be endless.
However, where the transport is provided by the employer or where the employer has sent the employee on an errand and he met with the accident in discharge of his duties, then of course the employer is liable. Hope the above clarifies. If more details are available, we can derive a definite conclusion on the basis of the above principles.
From India, Bhopal
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I endorse the views expressed by BSSV on the matter. The test to be applied is whether the injured employee was at the accident site in the capacity of being an employee or otherwise. In other words, was he there because of his employment or was he just like anyone else? The employer would be liable under the EC Act if and only if the accident has occurred out of and in the course of employment. There could be a notional extension with respect to time and place for the expression during the course of employment, but equally important, it has to arise out of employment. The cited ruling of Francis D Costa lays down the principle. We have successfully defended a matter where a murder took place inside the factory compound during dinner recess. If the accident while commuting is included for compensation, then there would be no end to the stretching of the limit because there could be no definite beginning or end to the employment term. The examples quoted by BSSV are a pointer with long-distance commuting becoming now a reality; otherwise, the misuse or abuse would be endless.
However, where the transport is provided by the employer or where the employer has sent the employee on an errand and he met with the accident in discharge of his duties, then of course the employer is liable. Hope the above clarifies. If more details are available, we can derive a definite conclusion on the basis of the above principles.
From India, Bhopal
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear member,
The employer's liability to pay compensation hinges on the key question of whether the accident caused to the employee can be said to be arising out of and in the course of employment. In order to construe an accident to be arising out of and in the course of employment, the accident should have a nexus with employment. It means that the employee could not have been involved in the accident but for his employment. Since an employee who is traveling to or from the workplace (from home or to home) cannot be said to be on duty, it is a tricky issue whether an accident occurring on such travel can really be said to be arising out of employment. To resolve this issue, the courts applied the doctrine of "notional extension" principle to verify whether the employer's time and premises can be extended to the time and place of the accident. In arriving at the conclusion, various factors of deviation as those mentioned by BSSV and KKNair, as well as factors like whether he is commuting by the employer's vehicle or on his personal vehicle, etc., will have to be gone into. You can apply these guidelines and the Francis D. Costa case to arrive at a decision on the matter.
B. Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Advisor
Mumbai
09930532927
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The employer's liability to pay compensation hinges on the key question of whether the accident caused to the employee can be said to be arising out of and in the course of employment. In order to construe an accident to be arising out of and in the course of employment, the accident should have a nexus with employment. It means that the employee could not have been involved in the accident but for his employment. Since an employee who is traveling to or from the workplace (from home or to home) cannot be said to be on duty, it is a tricky issue whether an accident occurring on such travel can really be said to be arising out of employment. To resolve this issue, the courts applied the doctrine of "notional extension" principle to verify whether the employer's time and premises can be extended to the time and place of the accident. In arriving at the conclusion, various factors of deviation as those mentioned by BSSV and KKNair, as well as factors like whether he is commuting by the employer's vehicle or on his personal vehicle, etc., will have to be gone into. You can apply these guidelines and the Francis D. Costa case to arrive at a decision on the matter.
B. Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Advisor
Mumbai
09930532927
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)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.