JUDGMENT : (LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance company challenging the order passed by the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour- IV: T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad (for short, ‘Labour Court’)in E.C.No.197of 2018, dated 06.01.2025. 2. Heard Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for appellant- insurance-company, Smt. Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6, who is on caveat. 3. Appellant herein is the Insurance company, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are claimants and respondent No.6 is the owner of the crime vehicle. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under. 4.1 One Sri Damodar (hereafter referred as ‘deceased’) is the husband of respondent No.1, father of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and son of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Deceased worked as driver with the respondent No.6, on a lorry bearing No.TS 12 UB 2640 and while he was in duty on 25.07.2018, he was proceeding from Miryalguda to Hyderabad on the said lorry with load of paddy dust. When he reached Duppalaplly Village, he stoped the lorry for want of diesel and made a telephone call to his employer and on instructions of the employer, deceased while proceeding to Korivengudem on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AX 1011, for collecting amount for diesel and on the way about 4.00 P.M, when he reached culvert bridge at the outskirts of Kananpally Village, Thipparthy Mandal, he lost control over the mototcycle and due to which motor cycle turned turtle on the culvert bridge and as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Deceased was taken to hospital and later shifted to Hyderabad and while shifting to Hyderabad, he died at 8.30 P.M. Based on the complaint, Thiparthy Police Station registered a case in Crime No.105 of 2018, under Sections 304-A of the IPC. 4.2. The claimants, i.e., parents and wife of the deceased, have filed claim petition against the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, before the Labour Court, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest from the date of accident till the date of realization. 4.2. The claimants, i.e., parents and wife of the deceased, have filed claim petition against the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, before the Labour Court, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest from the date of accident till the date of realization. 4.3 It is contended that deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 30 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and a batta of Rs.200/- per day and used to contribute the same to the welfare of his family and due to sudden death, petitioners have lost their future hope love and affection of the deceased. 5. The opposite party, who is the owner of crime vehicle remained ex-parte. 6. The opposite party No.2, filed a counter denying the contents of the petition and contended that insured vehicle was not involved in the accident and the deceased was not driving the insured vehicle at the tile of the accident and in fact, he was driving a motor cycle. Therefore, Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the deceased. They further averred that deceased was not an employee within the meaning of employees compensation Act, 1923 as the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment of the deceased and further denied that the driver was not having valid and affecting driving license as on the date of the accident. Hence prayed to dismiss the application. 7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the deceased was an employee and met with an accident on 25.07.2018 during the course and out of his employment as driver on the lorry bearing No. TS 12 UB 2640 in the employment of O.P.1 and died? ii) Who are liable to pay compensation to the applicants? And; iii) What is the amount of compensation entitled by the applicants? 8. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the respondents, respondent was examined as A.1 and ExA.11 to A17 were marked and on behalf of the appellant–insurance company, PW.1 was examined and got marked as Exb1. 9. The Labour Court, on due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, allowed the application vide order dated 06.01.2025, directing the opposite party Nos. 9. The Labour Court, on due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, allowed the application vide order dated 06.01.2025, directing the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, to pay the total compensation of Rs.8,21,030/- jointly and deposit the same together with interest @ 12& per annum on the amount of compensation from 25.07.208 till 31.07.2021 and again from 31.07.2024 to the date of realization before the Labour Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed 10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that admittedly, the deceased was not driving the lorry which is insured with the appellant-insurance company. Therefore, Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company relied on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Regional Director, E.S.I.Corporation and another Vs. Francis De Costa and another , [ (1996) 6 SCC 1 ] , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: “In order to succeed, it has to be proved by the employee that (1) there was an accident, (2) the accident had a causa connection with the employment and (3) the accident must have been suffered in the course of employment.” 11. In the above said case of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that since, employee was driving from his residence to office and met with an accident, I cannot be construed that he was on duty and met with accident during the course of his employment. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 5 would submit that in para No.17 of the judgment of Labour Court, the factual and legal aspects were considered basing on various judgments of Ho’ble Apex Court wherein it was held that employee met with accident during the course of employment. Learned counsel of respondent Nos. 1 to 5, further submitted that admittedly, deceased was on duty on lorry and on instructions of the owner was proceeding to owners place for getting funds for diesel, therefore, deceased was in due course of employment. The contention of the appellant-insurance company that the deceased was not on duty at the time of accident was incorrect. The Labour Court on due consideration of the documents as well as contention put forth by the appellant-insurance company has come to a conclusion that deceased died during the course of employment. The contention of the appellant-insurance company that the deceased was not on duty at the time of accident was incorrect. The Labour Court on due consideration of the documents as well as contention put forth by the appellant-insurance company has come to a conclusion that deceased died during the course of employment. The appellant-insurance company has taken defense before the Labour Court by relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court are hereunder: In a judgment reported in 2014 ACJ 1927 in a case between manju Sarkar and others V. Mabish Miah and another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, observed as follows: "Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, section 3 (1) -Arising out of and in the course of employment – Notional extension - Driver took the truck to its destination and was to bring the vehicle back laden with rice bags - Delay in loading goods and driver left the truck in care of helper telling him that he would return in the night - During the night he met with road accident and succumbed to his injuries in the hospital - Whether the doctrine of notional extension is applicable and the deceased met with road accident in the course of his employment Held: yes; deceased was at that place only on account of his employment as driver of truck". In a judgment reported in 2016 ACJ 1196 in a case between ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited V. K. Rajendran and another, decided on 23.2.2015, the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras, observed as follows: "Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, section 3(1) -Arising out of and in the course of employment Driver stopped his lorry for taking tea and while proceeding towards tea shop, he was hit by a car and sustained injuries Commissioner awarded compensation Contention that there was no nexus with user of lorry and the accident was not due to and in the course of Employment - Whether the accident occurred during the and insurance company is liable held: yes; if a driver stops for a moment and takes tea the same cannot be described that accident did not occur during the course of employment as the lorry was under the control of the driver when the accident took place". In another judgment reported in 2008 ACJ 2603 in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited V. Mariamma and others and another, wherein the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka observed that: "Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, section 3(1) and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 147 (1) proviso (i) (c) - Arising out of and in the course of employment - Motor insurance - Goods vehicle - Driver - Death of - Liability of insurance company Truck was stopped to enable its inmates to take food - Driver was about to cross the road when he was hit by a bus and sustained fatal injuries Insurance company of truck seeks to avoid its liability on the plea that deceased was not an inmate of truck, vehicle was not in movement and the deceased was not covered within the clause being carried in the vehicle' - Whether the accident is deemed to be in the course and out of employment of the deceased and insurance company is liable - Held: yes". In a judgment reported in 2016 ACJ 1156 in a case between National Insurance Company Limited V. Rais and another, decided on 22.4.2015, the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, observed as follows: "Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, section 3(1)- Arising out of and in the course of employment Workmen employed as driver of truck was instructed to get some mechanical work done in the truck - He was fetching some spare parts when hit by motorcycle and died due to injuries sustained in the accident - Whether the death of workman arose out of and in the course of his employment Held: yes; there is casual connection between employment and accident". In another judgment in a case between National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dhannu Ram, reported in 2006 (IV) LIJ (Suppl) NOC 528 (HP), the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, held as follows "Death of driver due to accident while he was returning on scooter after purchasing spare parts for the repair of the vehicle is accident in the course of employment and compensation is payable by the insured and insurer". Dhannu Ram, reported in 2006 (IV) LIJ (Suppl) NOC 528 (HP), the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, held as follows "Death of driver due to accident while he was returning on scooter after purchasing spare parts for the repair of the vehicle is accident in the course of employment and compensation is payable by the insured and insurer". In another judgment in a case between Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited V. Bira Malik, 2000 (3) LLJ (Suppl) 1386 (Ori), the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa held as follows: "Helper of the truck under repair in garage meeting with accident while on way to the place of owner of the truck for collecting money for repairs and sustaining injuries is entitled to compensation as he exposed himself to risk while discharging his duty and there was casual nexus between the employment and the accident". In a judgment reported in 2020(3) TAC 73(SC) = 2020 ACJ 1343 in a case between Poonam Devi and others V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, decided on 6.3.2020 wherein the Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India at New Delhi observed as follows:- "Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, Sections 3 and 4- A(3)(b) - Employee Compensation - Death during course of and arising out of employment Casual connection between death and employment - Deceased aged about 21 years and was in employment of respondent No.2 as a driver - While on the way he went to canal to fetch water and also to have a bath Unfortunately he slipped into canal and died - Rs.4.45,420/- along with interest @ 12% in addition to penalty imposed on employer was awarded by Commissioner - High Court allowed the appeal filed by respondent by holding that deceased may have died during course of employment but death in question did not arise out of employment, as bathing in the canal was not incidental to employment but was at peril of the workman Challenge against Indisputably, deceased was in the course of his employment - Judicial notice of the fact that the possibility of the truck also requiring water to prevent overheating cannot be completely ruled out - Act of deceased driver to ensure the safety of truck belonging to employer and to ensure safe journey for himself considered as incidental to employment by extension of national Employment Theory - Agnes and Leela Bai's relied – Impugned order of High Court set aside – Order of Commissioner restored - Appeal allowed - Direction issued". In a judgment reported in 2016 ACJ 1087 in a case between United India Insurance Company Limited V. Paavayee, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Madras observed as follows: "Section 3 (1) Arising out of and in the course of employment - Notional extension - Deceased employed in rig unit lorry while driving the motor cycle of his employer sustained fatal injuries when the motor cycle met with accident with a Tempo - Commissioner found that deceased went by motor cycle to get diesel for the lorry and accident arose in the course of employment and awarded compensation against insurance company of lorry - Contention that accident did not arise while the deceased was driving the lorry and accident took place while riding motor cycle could not be constructed as accident arising out of the use of lorry - Evidence that deceased was employed in the rig unit lorry and motor cycle used by the deceased was owned by the owner of the lorry - Testimony of claimants and owner of lorry that deceased took the motor cycle only to get diesel for the lorry and while riding he met with accident - Whether theory of notional extension is applicable and the accident arose out of and in the course of employment-Held: yes ". 13. Perusal of the record and order passed by the Labour Court would show that admittedly, the deceased was on duty and he was going to his employers residence for fetching money for purchasing diesel, therefore, it has to be held that deceased was on duty and that the accident has taken place during the course of his employment. In the judgment relied by the appellant-insurance company, the deceased was going to office from his residence, but in the present case, deceased was in the due course of the duty. Therefore, the contention of the appellant- insurance company that the deceased was not on duty is incorrect. Except this contention, no other grounds are raised by the appellant- insurance company. 14. In view of the above discussions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.