One of my friends was injured when leaving work to get to his home. When he reached the main road from his workplace on his two-wheeler after logging off from work to return home, he was hit by a lorry. He is now paralyzed from the neck down.
Will such an accident be covered by the Workmen's Compensation? Kindly advise if there are any court judgments that support the same.
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Will such an accident be covered by the Workmen's Compensation? Kindly advise if there are any court judgments that support the same.
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Mr. Babu,
It is a very difficult query for me to answer. However, due to the seriousness of your case, I searched and found that in Sec:03 of the Workmen's Compensation Act-1923. This section states that an employer is liable to pay compensation to a workman for personal injury caused to him by accident as well as for any occupational diseases.
Your said case falls under personal accident. The section further explains that the employer is liable to pay compensation only if personal injury is caused to a workman by an accident ARISING OUT OF and IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT. So, according to this line, your friend's accident may have arisen in the course of employment but not out of employment. Hence, there is no question of employer liability, and therefore, there would be no compensation.
I request other learned members in the group to correct me if there are any mistakes.
With regards,
Mr. Thumbs Up
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
115It is a very difficult query for me to answer. However, due to the seriousness of your case, I searched and found that in Sec:03 of the Workmen's Compensation Act-1923. This section states that an employer is liable to pay compensation to a workman for personal injury caused to him by accident as well as for any occupational diseases.
Your said case falls under personal accident. The section further explains that the employer is liable to pay compensation only if personal injury is caused to a workman by an accident ARISING OUT OF and IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT. So, according to this line, your friend's accident may have arisen in the course of employment but not out of employment. Hence, there is no question of employer liability, and therefore, there would be no compensation.
I request other learned members in the group to correct me if there are any mistakes.
With regards,
Mr. Thumbs Up
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Already discussed here: https://www.citehr.com/404608-accide...-download.html
From India, Lucknow
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Lucknow
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Pon1965,
Thanks for the link to the discussion. However, upon reviewing the link, it was noted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Francis d Costa, did not allow the claim on the employer since the transit was to the place of employment. Nevertheless, members like Madhu T.K. had different views. I am unsure if there are other cases that have been ruled differently based on different circumstances. Any help is appreciated.
Thanks.
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks for the link to the discussion. However, upon reviewing the link, it was noted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Francis d Costa, did not allow the claim on the employer since the transit was to the place of employment. Nevertheless, members like Madhu T.K. had different views. I am unsure if there are other cases that have been ruled differently based on different circumstances. Any help is appreciated.
Thanks.
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Kumaran Praveen Thanks for the help. I very much appreciate your help and effort. Will also wait for other members to give their views on the same. Thanks
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Another judgment which says negative: Not payable.
[Link to judgment](http://highcourt.cg.gov.in/Afr/courtJudgementandAFR/2015/aug/MA%28C%291408of2007.pdf)
From India, Lucknow
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
[Link to judgment](http://highcourt.cg.gov.in/Afr/courtJudgementandAFR/2015/aug/MA%28C%291408of2007.pdf)
From India, Lucknow
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The accident has arisen while transiting home directly from the office. In my opinion, the theory of the notional extension of the work spot would enable the injured person to claim accident benefits/compensation. Welfare legislations are to be construed in a manner that benefits flow to injured people/beneficiaries. Otherwise, the rule gets so strict that unless a person is injured within the factory/office or going for office-related work, he will not be entitled to compensation.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Is your friend covered under ESI? Wherever the provisions of ESI Act apply, the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act do not apply. If your friend is covered under ESI, ESI will pay dependent benefits to him.
N. LOKANDHA BABU
From India, Guntur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
N. LOKANDHA BABU
From India, Guntur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi, Pl. check there is amendment in the Employees compensation act recently. regards, DBN
From Germany, Lohmar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From Germany, Lohmar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
Brochure for On Crisis and Accidents Management.pdf
Tour & Travel Policy.docx
TRAVEL POLICY.zip