JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur, dated July 31, 1971. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Mst. Sosarbai, wife of the appellant, was an employee of the respondent and was drawing Rs. 60/- per mensem as her wages. On March 21, 1970, motor truck bearing No. RDJ 2131 dasbed against a pillar, which fell on Mst. Sosarbai resulting in her death within the precincts of the factory. The appellant, who is the husband of Mst. Sosarbai, presented an application on November 19, 1970, claiming Rs. 3600/- as compensation. The Workmen's Compensation commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner), thereupon served a notice on the respondent and directed him to submit his written statement. The respondent in his written statement, contested his liability to pay compensation by saying that Mst. Sosarbai died on account of her own carelessness and negligence as she left the work and began to roam about here and there. It was also pleaded that the appellant was not the dependent of Mst. Sosarbai and as such he was not entitled to claim compensation. The respondent further pleaded as the accident took place by a motor truck, the claim for compensation ought to have been filed before the Motor Accident Claims. Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act and not to the court of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 3. On the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed - "1. Whether Smt. Sosarbai, wife of Shri Chunni Lal, met with an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment? 2. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide this claim? 3. Relief? On considering the evidence led by the parties, the Commissioner found that in case of fatal accident, negligence or carelessness was no defence under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Commissioner then dealt with the question whether the accident arose out of an in the course of employment and came to the conclusion that there was no positive evidence on record, documentary or otherwise, to prove that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. According to the learned Commissioner, there was no evidence on the record to prove that Mst. According to the learned Commissioner, there was no evidence on the record to prove that Mst. Sobarbai was engaged on duty at the time and at the place of accident, or that the accident took place during the currency of the employment. The Commissioner came to the above conclusion because he found that the accident took place after the working hours of the factory and at the time when she went to the shed to take her. 'Dabosa' on her way to home. On the question of jurisdiction, the learned Commissioner decided in favour of the appellant and held that the option lay with the claimant either to file his claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Commissioner further held that the appellant was not entitled to file the claim as he failed that the appellant was not entitled to file the claim as he failed to prove to be a dependant of Mst. Sosarbai. No finding, as to the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the appellant, was given by the Commissioner. On the above findings, the learned Commissioner dismissed the claim. It is against this order that the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 5. It is true that the employer cannot be held responsible for compensation unless the accident causing the death of the employee arises out of and in the course of employment. The question whether a particular accident arose out of an in the course of the employment of a particular workman would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, there is no dispute between the parties that the deceased Mst. Sosarbai was in the employ of the respondent. It is also not in dispute that the accident took place within the precincts of the factory where the deceased was employed. The evidence produced by the respondent that the accident took place after the working hours and at the time when Mst. Sosarbai went to the shed to take her "Dabosa' cannot be relied upon as no such plea was put forward in the written statements filed by the respondent. On the contrary, the plea taken by the respondent was that Mst. Sosarbai went to the shed to take her "Dabosa' cannot be relied upon as no such plea was put forward in the written statements filed by the respondent. On the contrary, the plea taken by the respondent was that Mst. Sosarbai met with the accident because she left her work and was roaming about here and there. Not only that there is direct evidence of Bhura and Pratap to the effect that the accident took place at the time when Smt. Sosarbai was performing her duty of cleaning 'Bhodal'. 6. Even assuming, that the accident took place after the working hours at a time when Mst. Sosarbai was returning to her home and was picking up her "dabosa" which was lying under the shed, that would not make much difference. As already pointed out above, the question when does an employment begin and when does it cease, depends upon the facts of each case. As observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in General Manager, B.E.S.T., Bombay v. Mrs. Agnes, AIR 1964 SC 193 "the employment does not necessarily end when the "down tool" signal is given or when the workman leaves the actual workshop where he is working. There is a notional extension at both the entry and they exist by time and space. "....An employment may end or may begin not only when the employee begins to work or leave his tools but also when he used the means of access and egress to an from the place of employment." As per finding of the Commissioner, Mst. Sosarbai after the close of the working hours, was on her way to her home and was picking up her "dabosa" which she had kept under the shed within the precincts of the factory. She could not have left the premises of the factory without taking the "dabosa" in which she had probably brought her food. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the fatal injury received by Mst. Sosarbai was not caused to her by an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. Taking away "dabosa" while returning home, was an act arising out of and in the course of her employment. It has been laid down in Saurashtra Salt manufacturing Co. Sosarbai was not caused to her by an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. Taking away "dabosa" while returning home, was an act arising out of and in the course of her employment. It has been laid down in Saurashtra Salt manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja and others, AIR 1958 SC 881 that "as a rule the employment of a workman does not commence until he has reached the place of employment and does not continue when he has left the place of employment the journey to and from the place of employment being excluded. It is now well settled that this is subject to the theory of notional extension of the employer's premises so as to include an area which the workman passes and repasses in going to and in leaving the actual place of work. There may be some reasonable extension in both time and place and a workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his employer's premises. The facts and circumstances of each case will have to be examined very carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of a workman, keeping in view at all times this theory of notional extension." In view of the above principles, it can safely be said that the accident in the present case arose out of and in the course employment keeping in view the theory of notional extension. In my opinion, the learned Commissioner committed error in holding that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. 7. The Commissioner has next found that the appellant is not entitled to compensation as he has not proved to be the dependent of the deceased Mst. Sosarbai. It is true that there is no evidence to show that the appellant was the dependent of the deceased Sosarbai. But there is no dispute that the appellant is an heir of Mst. Sosarbai. The learned counsel for the parties were not able to point out any such rule or law which authorises only the dependent to file a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. But there is no dispute that the appellant is an heir of Mst. Sosarbai. The learned counsel for the parties were not able to point out any such rule or law which authorises only the dependent to file a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In absence of any law taking away the right of an heir of the deceased to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the appellant is entitled to compensation. 8. On the question of compensation, it is agreed that Mst. Sosarbai was paid Rs.45/- per mensem, as her wages and the appellant is entitled to Rs. 2700/- as compensation on the basis of the said wages. 9. I, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and hold that the appellant is entitled to recover Rs. 2700/- from the respondent. 10. The costs of both the courts shall be borne by the respondent. *******