FAO-5786-2015 [232] HDFC Ergo Company L Umed Sing Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] passed by 1923. [2] on truck ow apart from while the t employer t truck. The leading to l [3] amounting [4] 2015 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA FAO-5786 Date of De C Ergo General Insurance pany Limited versus d Singh and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate f Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Tarun Kumar Yadav, Adv Ms. Parul, Advocate for respon **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Insurance company is in appe d by the Commissioner under the As per the claimants, decease uck owned by respondent No.1-Shamm from diet money of ₹150/-. On 24.0 e the truck was being loaded, the driv oyer to fetch tirpal from his house t . The driver while going back after fe ng to loss of his life. Commissioner vide impugn nting to ₹10,61,580/-. Learned counsel representin T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 5786-2015(O&M) of Decision :12.01.2026 …Appellant ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN ocate for Mr. Rajneesh Malhtora, Advocate and respondent Nos.1 & 2. appeal against order dated 28.04.201 r the Employee’s Compensation Ac eceased-Satpal was working as a driv Shammi on a monthly wage of ₹15000 n 24.07.2013 at about 10.30/11.00 PM he driver received a message from h ouse to cover the goods loaded in th fter fetching tirpal met with an accide mpugned order awarded compensatio senting the Insurance Company ha 1 04.2015 on Act, a driver 15000/- .00 PM om his d in the accident ensation ny has RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.21 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5786-2015 assailed the on behalf o applicant, work but t claiming th there being Commissio claimants. going to R between res [5] submits tha employer. statement, as a driver contended t of the dece in view of He further season for employer c [6] through rec [7] be written 2015 (O&M) led the findings recorded by the Comm ehalf of the appellant that in the FIR , it was specifically stated that the but thereafter while filing the prese ing that he was employed as a driver. being any written evidence to prove missioner erred in ignoring material c ants. She further submits that the f Rewari proves the fact of there b een respondent No.1 and the deceased. Per contra, learned counsel its that the best person to dispute th oyer. Employer, who was arraigned ment, wherein he specifically admitte driver and was employed just 3-4 days nded that minor contradictions that to e deceased who is a rustic, illiterate a ew of there being a categorical clear rther submits that the deceased having for the goods loaded in the truck, oyer cannot be said to be out of the sp I have heard counsel for the gh record of the case. Trite it is that under 1923 Act ritten or oral, expressed or implied. Commissioner. It has been contende he FIR lodged on the statement of th hat the deceased was doing agricultur present petition, version was change river. He submits that in the absence prove the contract of employment, th erial contradiction in the version of th t the fact that the deceased died whi there being no contract of employme eased. ounsel for the respondents-claiman ute the contract of employment is th igned as respondent No.1, filed writte dmitted that the deceased was workin 4 days prior to the accident. It has bee that too in the statement made by fath erate agriculturist cannot be relied upo clear admission on behalf of employe having gone to fetch cover during rain , that too, on the instructions of th sphere of employment. or the parties and have carefully gon 23 Act, the contract of employment ca plied. Trite it is that FIR is not 2 ntended t of the icultural changed sence of ent, the n of the d while loyment laimants nt is the written working as been y father ed upon ployer. ng rainy s of the gone ent can not an RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.21 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5786-2015 encycloped [8] he admitted No evidenc thereof, th findings re employee o [9] interpreting elaborately Company pronounce 2015 (O&M) clopedia of the entire facts involving th In the present case, employer mitted of having employed deceased j vidence was led by the Insurance Com of, this Court does not find any reaso ngs recorded by the Commissioner oyee of respondent No.1 as admission The issue with respect to doc preting the expression “during the c rately explained by this Court in ny Limited versus Pyari and a ounced on 04.10.2024, observing as u “20. Thus, from the afore application of ‘notional exten emerge:- (i) As a rule, th not commen employment leaves the pl subject to th employer's p (ii) Theory of no may be som & place. An the course o not reached (iii) An employe place or in a a member o employmen employment ving the case. ployer filed written statement, where eased just 3-4 days prior to the acciden e Company to rebut the same. In vie reason to interfere in the well reason sioner holding that the deceased wa ission is the best piece of evidence. to doctrine of notional extension whi the course of employment” has bee urt in ‘Reliance General Insuranc and another’, FAO No.940 of 201 as under:- foresaid precedents relating to t extension’ the following propositio le, the employment of an employee do mence until he has reached the place ent and does not continue after he place of employment. However, this to the theory of notional extension of t r's premises; of notional extension connotes that the some reasonable extension in both tim . An employee may be regarded to be rse of employment even though he ha hed or had left the employer's premise loyee while on public road or in publ in a public transport, is present there er of public and not in the course ent unless very nature of t ent necessarily requires for him to 3 wherein ccident. n view easoned ed was n while as been surance of 2016 o the sitions e does lace of he this is of the t there h time be in e had mises; public ere as rse of f the to be RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.21 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5786-2015 [10] present cas the claiman presumed t [11] awarded co arising out [12] be dismisse [13] disposed of 12.01.2026 ‘R. Sharma' 2015 (O&M) there. The t was within t not”; and (iv) The acciden with the emp Applying the aforesaid param nt case, this Court finds merit in the laimants that an employee answering med to be within the sphere of employ In view thereof, this Court fin ded compensation to the claimants fo g out of and during the course of emp Finding no merits in the prese smissed. All pending miscellaneous ed off. .2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable he test for determining is “whether hin the sphere of area of employment cident must have a causal connectio employment.” parameters to the factual matrix of th in the contention raised by counsel fo ering the call of the employer has to b loyment. urt finds that the Commissioner right ants for death of Satpal in an accide f employment. present appeal, the same is ordered neous application(s), if any, stand (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 4 her he ent or ection of the nsel for as to be r rightly accident dered to stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.21 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document