POONAM DEVI AND OTHERS versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 922 · Decided: 06-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
922
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
POONAM DEVI AND OTHERS
v.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 1836 of 2020)
MARCH 06, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923: Theory of notional
extension – Victim-deceased was a truck driver – On 11 June 2003,
he was driving truck of respondent no.2 from Ambala to Meerut,
a distance of 200 Kms – At about 12.30 p.m., he stopped the truck
near bridge to fetch water from the canal and also to have bath
when he slipped into the canal and died – PW-2 standing near
bridge tried to save him but he also slipped in the canal and could
not save the deceased – Workman Commissioner granted
compensation to  LRs of the deceased – However, High Court held
that death did not arise out of the employment but was at the peril
of the workman as he had gone to fetch water for his personal
consumption and it was not case that the truck was over heated –
On appeal, held: The deceased was driving the truck of respondent
no.2 from Ambala to Meerut – Indisputably he was in the course
of his employment – The cabin of the truck was not air conditioned
and it would have been a baking oven in the middle of the
afternoon in the sultry monsoon heat of June 2003, when the
temperature was touching 42.60C in Yamunagar (Haryana) – It was
a compulsion for the deceased to stay fresh and alert not only to
protect the truck from damage but also to ensure a smooth journey
and protect his own life by safe driving – The possibility of the
truck also requiring water to prevent overheating could not be
completely ruled out – In such circumstances, it cannot be said that
the act of the deceased in going to the canal to fetch water for
the truck and to refresh himself by a bath before continuing the
journey was not incidental to the employment – Every action of
the driver of a truck to ensure the safety of the truck belonging to
the employer and to ensure his own safety by a safe journey for
himself has to be considered as incidental to the employment by
extension of the notional employment theory – The application of
   [2020] 4 S.C.R. 922
922
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
923
the theory of notional extension will therefore apply in the facts
of the instant case – Order of Commissioner is restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  1.The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now
christened as “Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923”) is a piece
of socially beneficial legislation. The provisions will therefore
have to be interpreted in a manner to advance the purpose of
the legislation, rather than to stultify it.  In case of a direct conflict,
when no reconciliation is possible, the statutory provision will
prevail only then. [Para 7] [925-H; 926-A]
2. The deceased was driving the truck of respondent no.2
from Ambala to Meerut.  Indisputably he was in the course of
his employment.  Considering the manufacturer’s specification,
the cabin of the truck was not air conditioned and would have
been a baking oven in the middle of the afternoon in the sultry
monsoon heat of June 2003, when the temperature was touching
42.60C in Yamunagar (Haryana) (source: weatheronline.in).  It
was a compulsion for the deceased to stay fresh and alert not
only to protect the truck of respondent no.2 from damage but
also to ensure a smooth journey and protect his own life by safe
driving. The possibility of the truck also requiring water to
prevent overheating cannot be completely ruled out.  In these
circumstances, it cannot be said that the act of the deceased in
going to the canal to fetch water in a can for the truck and to
refresh himself by a bath before continuing the journey was not
incidental to the employment. A truck driver who would not keep
himself fresh to drive in such heat would be a potential danger
to others on the road by reason of any bonafide errors of
judgement by reason of the heat. The application of the theory
of notional extension will therefore apply in the facts of the
present case also. The order of Commissioner is restored.
[Paras 11, 13, 15] [927-B-D; 928-G; 929-A]
Manju Sarkar & Ors. v. Mabish Miah & Ors. (2014)
14 SCC 21 : [2014] 6 SCR 126 – relied on.
Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. Branch Manager, Oriental
Insurance Company Limited and Another (2009) 13
SCC 405 : [2009] 2 SCR 320 – distinguished.  
POONAM DEVI AND OTHERS v.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
924
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
Leela Bai and Anr. v. Seema Chouhan and Anr. (2019)
4 SCC 325 ; 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.