Supreme Court: Accident Occurring To Employee While Commuting From His Residence To Place Of Employment Or Vice Versa Covered Under Employees’ Compensation Act

The Supreme Court held that an accident occurring to an employee while commuting from his residence to the place of employment or vice versa, is covered under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (EC Act), provided the nexus between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred and the employment is established.

The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal filed by the family members of the deceased employee against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “… we interpret the phrase “accident arising out of and in the course of his employment” occurring in Section 3 of the EC Act to include accident occurring to an employee while commuting from his residence to the place of employment for duty or from the place of employment to his residence after performing duty, provided the nexus between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred and the employment is established.”

AOR Atul Babasaheb Dakh appeared on behalf of the Appellants while AOR Amrreeta Swaarup appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The deceased was employed as a watchman in the Respondent-Sugar Factory. His duty hours were from early morning 3 a.m. to 11 a.m. On April 22, 2023, he left home on his motorcycle to report for duty, however, unfortunately he did not reach his place of work. When he was 5 kms away from the factory, his motorcycle was involved in a fatal accident. He left a large family behind i.e., a widow, four children, and his mother. In a claim filed under the EC Act, the employer and the insurance company set up the defence that the accident had not arisen out of or in the course of his employment, since the accident occurred outside the precincts of the factory.

Overruling the same, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Civil Judge awarded Rs. 3,26,140/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the family members. The insurance company was directed to deposit the amount since there was a valid insurance policy and the employer was asked to pay 50% of the awarded amount as penalty. Being aggrieved, the insurance company filed an Appeal before the High Court, which reversed the findings of the Commissioner and held that since the deceased was on his way to his employment, the accident cannot be said to have its origin in the employment. Therefore, the aggrieved family members approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “It is well settled that where statutes in pari materia serve a common object in absence of any provision indicating to the contrary, it is permissible for a court of law to ascertain the meaning of the provision in the enactment by comparing its language with the other enactment relating to the same subject matter.”

Considering that the deceased was a night watchman and was dutifully proceeding to his workplace to be well on time, the Court was of the view that there was a clear nexus between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred and his employment as watchman.

“The accident having clearly arisen out of and in the course of employment, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad was justified in ordering the claim under the EC Act by his judgment of 26.06.2009”, it added.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the High Court’s Judgment, and restored that of the Commissioner.

Cause Title- Daivshala & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 904)

Appearance:

Appellants: AOR Atul Babasaheb Dakh, Advocates Diganta Gogoi, Bitu Kumar Singh, and Praveen Kumar Pand.

Respondents: AOR Amrreeta Swaarup

Click here to read/download the Judgment