JUDGMENT 1. The appeal is admitted on 20.2.2007. 2. At the time of admission, no substantial question of law was formulated. It is now formulated, as under:- Whether deceased Shaikh Aleem expired during the course of employment suffered an accident? 3. Heard. Shaikh Aleem was truck driver on truck No. MH-26-7230 on monthly salary of Rs.5000/- plus Rs.50/-daily Bhatta. On 23.5.2005, Shaikh Aleem had been to Jintur for unloading cotton at Ayodhya Ginning factory on Jintur Yeldari road. At 11.00 p.m., he had parked the vehicle in the factory. Thereafter, in the process of unloading, he came out of the factory and while walking on the road side, he was knocked by unknown vehicle. Resultantly, he was injured and shifted to Government Hospital and later succumbed to the injuries on 24.5.2005. Post mortem was drawn. The cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injury with bomice infracraninal hemorrhage. 4. The claimants-appellants asserted that death occurred due to accidental injuries received during and in the course of employment. A crime was registered being crime No. 101 of 2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. against unknown vehicle. The appellants feel, the accident has caused financial debacle and resulted in the dereliction of their family structure. The Workmen’s Compensation First appeal No. 9 of 2005 was lodged before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division and Ex-Officio Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Act, Nanded. After notice, the respondents appeared. The employer accepted, deceased Shaikh Aleem was serving as truck driver with him since 5 years on Truck No. MH-26-7230 and drawing salary of Rs.5000/- with daily Bhatta of Rs. 50/-. He does not dispute that Shaikh Aleem had been to Jintur for unloading the cotton at Ayodhya Ginning alongwith cleaner Sayyad Ismail and that accident had taken place on 23.5.2005. 5. Respondent No.2 Insurance company disputed the claim and submitted that the petition is bad in the eyes of law for want of mandatory notice under Section 10 of Workmen’s Compensation Act. It is denied that Shaikh Aleem was driver, drawing salary of Rs.5000/- p.m. Learned Judge on assessing evidence, hold death was not during course of employment. The rejection of the claim petition on 28.11.2006 has made the claimants to file present appeal. 6. It is denied that Shaikh Aleem was driver, drawing salary of Rs.5000/- p.m. Learned Judge on assessing evidence, hold death was not during course of employment. The rejection of the claim petition on 28.11.2006 has made the claimants to file present appeal. 6. The evidence of the claimants and also police papers suggested death of Shaikh Aleem owing to vehicular accident giving rise to crime No. 101 of 2005. The claimants indeed established that deceased was workman within the meaning of Workmen’s Compensation Act. There is no controversy about existence of insurance policy (Exh.33) covering the claim. Neither respondent No.1 Azmat Khan nor respondent No.2 Insurance company adduced any evidence before the learned Judge. 7. The factual matrix, Shaikh Aleem was serving with respondent No.1 as driver and having driven the truck for unloading purposes of cotton to said Ayodhya Ginning is not in controversy. The truck was under process of unloading and in midway said Shaikh Aleem had gone, to answer natures call to road side and was crushed in the accident. 8. It was canvassed by learned counsel for Insurance Company that accidental death of the driver was not while working on the truck or during the course of employment, as a truck driver. His death has occasioned unfortunately when he has left the truck unattended and went outside factory, which would not extend his employment, as driver of the truck. 9. An objection is raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that owner of the truck has not stepped in witness box, however, his absence or presence would not accelerate the case in any direction, as he was not present at the spot. The record illustrates that the goods (raw cotton) in the truck was under process of unloading and the deceased had gone to attend natures call. Thus, the workman-driver was proceeding during the course of his employment, suffered jerk of accident and succumbed to the injuries. The driver was on duty, as after unloading the truck, he was bound to take it back to owner or to the other destination. The job, which the deceased was required to undertake, was a continuation. Leaving the truck for a short duration was part of extension of his job as a driver. The driver was on duty, as after unloading the truck, he was bound to take it back to owner or to the other destination. The job, which the deceased was required to undertake, was a continuation. Leaving the truck for a short duration was part of extension of his job as a driver. Merely because accident has taken place when unloading goods in vehicle was in the process it cannot be said that the accident did not take place during the course of employment. It is not that deceased took a risk, to leave the truck, he did not expose himself to any peril, illegally. It was in the course of the work assigned to him, the injury has occasioned. 10. The words “arising out of and in the course of employment” used in Section 3 of Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 are wide enough to embrace in its sweep the short movement of the truck driver. These aspects have indeed gone uncontested and for want of adverse evidence the claim should have been accepted. 11. In General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking vs. Mrs. Agnes – AIR 1964 SC 193 , the driver of the bus was on duty and after his work, he boarded another bus in order to come to his residence. The said bus collided with a stationary lorry parked at an awkward angle. Resultantly, the driver was thrown out and he expired. It was held, the death of driver in another bus was during the course of his employment hence, he was entitled to compensation. It was observed by the Supreme Court, the efficiency of the service depends, interalia, on the facility given to a driver for his journey to and from his house in the depot. A bus driver has to drive a bus allotted to him from morning till evening with necessary intervals, and for that purpose he has to reach the depot concerned early in the morning and go back to his home after his work is finished and the bus is lodged in the depot. 12. The Supreme Court explained the term “course of employment” and observed, “the course of employment begins when the workman enters employment and ceased when he leave the employment after his duty to do both. The Hon’ble Court referred to Lord Porter. Lord Porter in the case of Alderman v. Great Western Rly. Co. 12. The Supreme Court explained the term “course of employment” and observed, “the course of employment begins when the workman enters employment and ceased when he leave the employment after his duty to do both. The Hon’ble Court referred to Lord Porter. Lord Porter in the case of Alderman v. Great Western Rly. Co. 1937 AC 454 observed:- “It is in the course of his employment, and, if the phrase be used, it is part of his duty, both to go to and to proceed from the work upon, which he is engaged, and, so long as he is in a place in which persons other than those so engaged would have no right to be, and indeed, in which he himself would have no right to be but for the work on which he is employed, he would, I think, normally still be in the course of his employment.” 13. In the present case, there is nothing to induce to hold that truck driver had abandoned duty for his personal work or that his duty was terminated. Indeed, he had perforce to take back the truck after unloading to other destination. The area of operation would thus be extensive even if the driver has left the truck for a while. Is it that the driver of the truck should not answer nature's call, or simply for that purpose, he should be thrown away from being branded as a employee or workman. It cannot be said such employee has not expired during the course of employment. It is matter of record, as rule, employment of workmen like the driver has the connectivity with the vehicle. The cleaner could not even otherwise drive the vehicle. 14. The facts and circumstances of each case needs to be examined carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose within and in the course of employment of the workman. This is keeping in view the theory of notional extension. The time gap in the instant case of parking truck for unloading and driver leaving, is eloquent and cannot be trotted to claimants’ disadvantage. 15. In the situation, I hold that the driver expired during the course of employment, as workman. The substantial question of law is answered in affirmative. 16. Evidence suggests that Shaikh Aleem was earning Rs.5000/- p.m. He was 40 years old. 15. In the situation, I hold that the driver expired during the course of employment, as workman. The substantial question of law is answered in affirmative. 16. Evidence suggests that Shaikh Aleem was earning Rs.5000/- p.m. He was 40 years old. Insurance policy was valid from 22.10.2004 to 21.10.2005, which covers the date of accident and death of deceased, which occurred during the course and at the time of employment. Notice under section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act was dispatched by registered post A.D. to respondent No.1 for payment of compensation. The same has not been disputed by respondent No.1. 17. Schedule IV of Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 provide factors for working out lump-sum equivalent of compensation in case of permanent disablement and death. In case of completed years of age of 40, the factor is 184.17. The claimants are thus entitled for an amount of Rs.3,68,207/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from respondents and also entitled for Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses, with costs.