JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties.This appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is directed against the order of Workmen Compensation Commissioner dated 20th March, 1998, whereby the claim petition was rejected. 2. According to the claimants, Chaina Ram S/o Shri Hameera Ram, was employed as Consumer Complaint Attendant with the respondent Rajasthan State Electricity Board and was posted at village Kagal where there was no office of the said Board. The minor complaints of consumers were attended by the said person and if there were major complaints, he was supposed to report the same to the office of Corporation Pipar city and for going to Pipar city from village Kagal one has to board a train from Sathin. On 16.3.1987 it was a holiday on account of Holi Festival ( /kqy.Mh ) and, therefore, on 17.3.1987 he went to village Sathin to catch a train for Pipar city to report some complaints, then unfortunately he met with an accident at Railway Station itself by a train and he died as a result of the said accident. 3. The claim of Rs. 75,000/- was made before the Commissioner, which was however rejected by the impugned order merely on the ground that the claimants failed to establish that there was any such complaint on that particular date for which the said person Chaina Ram was supposed to go to Pipar city. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the said person was working with respondent Electricity Board as Consumer Complaint Attendant at the relevant point of time and it was a usual practise to attend all minor complaints in village Kagal and if there were major complaints, he was to report the same at Pipar city. This has been admitted in the statement of DW 1 Udai Singh the concerned J. En. of respondent Board who however has said in his statement that there were no complaints on 17.3.1987, but he said that the said Chaina Ram used to mark his own attendance in village Kagal and used to give his attendance-sheet to the J. En. around 15th of every month. He had however given his attendance up to 14.3.1987. On 15.3.1987 it was a weekly off day and on 16.3.1987 it was holiday on account of Holi Festival. 5. around 15th of every month. He had however given his attendance up to 14.3.1987. On 15.3.1987 it was a weekly off day and on 16.3.1987 it was holiday on account of Holi Festival. 5. According to the statement of AW-1 Smt. Mohani Devi wife of deceased Chaina Ram, she has stated that on 16.3.1987 at about 2.00 P.M. her husband Chaina Ram told her that there was some complaints and he would go to Pipar city next day and left the house at about 6.00 A.M in the morning from village Kagal and she got the information about 10.00 A.M. in the morning that he husband met with an accident at village Sathin. This version has also been supported by the another witness Ram Niwas AW-2. 6. Shri P.C. Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the said person was going to Pipar city and was to board a train from village Sathin in connection with some complaints and also to give his attendance to the J.En who had a office in Pipar city and, therefore, his journey during which he met with this accident may be taken to have occurred during the course of his employment on 17.3.1987 and, therefore, the claim petition has wrongly bee rejected by the Tribunal. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants relies upon the following judgment in support of his submissions. In General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombap Mrs. Agnes, 1963 (7) FLR 310 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a B.E.S.T driver after finishing his duties at 7.45 P.M. boarded another bus for reaching his residence and the said bus collided with a stationary lorry parked at an awkward angle and as a result of the said collision, the said person was thrown out on the road and was injured and as a result of the said injury he expired six days after the said accident, it was held that the said accident occurred during the coursed of his employment and on the basis of theory of notional extension of employer's premises, the claimant was entitled to be given the said claim. In another judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dilip Singh and others v. General Manager, Central Railway and others, 2003 ACJ 1257 the Railway workman was on leave till 30.12.1987 and was to resume duty on 31.12.1987 as a khalasi/gangman and his duty was laying earth at railway track, was run over by a train in the station yard on 31.12.1987, it was contended on behalf of Railways that the workman died during the course of leave and, therefore, the claimants were not entitled to any claim. This contention was rejected by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court and it was held that the workman will be deemed to be on duty and the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment and, therefore, the claimants were entitled to the compensation. 8. From the facts of the present case, it appears that looking to the nature of the duties of said person who was working in a village Kagal his duty was to report the major fault, if any, to the J.En.'s office Pipar city and also to report his attendance marked by himself in the village Kagal, he was supposed to attend the J.En.'s office at Pipar city and admittedly he was going to the Pipar city, on 17.3.1987 when he was going for reporting the complaints and his attendance to the said J.En. Office, he met with the said accident and died on the spot Therefore, looking to the nature of the accident at village Sathin, it will be deemed that the said accident has occurred in the course of his employment Therefore, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has erred in rejecting the said claim merely on the ground that no paper of the complaint was found or no specific complaint was proved to be exiting on that date. It is not shown as to whether all complaints are necessarily required to be made in writing and in a village, whether the Consumer Complaint Attendant was supposed under the rules to carry such written complaints. In the absence of any such legal requirement merely in the absence of any such paper being found or also the fact that he was not carrying any tools etc. In the absence of any such legal requirement merely in the absence of any such paper being found or also the fact that he was not carrying any tools etc. at the time of accident it cannot be said that he was not going to village Sathin and thereafter to Pipar city for reporting any such complaint or giving his attendance-sheet. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondents also urged that since no notice under section 10 of the Act was given soon after the accident to the respondent Board, therefore, the claim cannot be granted. The said provisions of section 10 (1) of the Act covers twins conditions namely that no claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner hereinafter provided as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and unless the claim is preferred before him within two years of the occurrence of the accident or in case of death within two years from the date of death. 10. Since in the present case, the claim has been preferred on 12.9.1989 after the accident took place on 17.3.1987 there was apparently a delay in filing the claim, but the said delay was condoned by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner himself in the impugned order. Therefore, the non giving of any notice prior to preferring the claim petition cannot debar the claim on this ground alone. 11. Accordingly, this present appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and workmen compensation Commissioner is directed to decide the claim petition afresh on merits in accordance with the provisions of the Act expeditiously not later than a period of six months from today and the compensation, as may be determined by him shall be paid by the Respondent Board within a period of next three months to the claimants.Appeal Allowed. *******