District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

Notional Extension of Employment Brings Accident During Medical Aid Within Employment Scope: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Kerala High Court on 9th April 2024, upheld the principles of notional extension of employment in the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Radhakrishnan & Others. The court dismissed the appeal filed by The Oriental Insurance Company challenging the compensation awarded to a bus conductor who met with an accident while seeking medical aid for a condition experienced during his employment.

Legal Point of Judgment: The primary legal issue revolved around whether the bus conductor’s accident, which occurred while he was on his way to the hospital for a condition experienced during work, fell within the scope of his employment for the purposes of compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

Background: The bus conductor, employed by the 2nd respondent and later involving a bus owned by the 3rd respondent, suffered chest pain during his employment and subsequently met with an accident while traveling to the hospital. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation awarded him a compensation of Rs.1,13,736/-, which was challenged by the Oriental Insurance Company.

Transfer of Liability: The court referenced Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, noting that the liability of the insurance policy transfers with the ownership of the vehicle, as established in “Mallamma (Dead) by L.rs. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others [(2014) 14 SCC 137]”.

Notional Extension of Employment: The court applied the principle of notional extension of employment, asserting that the journey to the hospital for medical aid falls within the scope of employment. This principle was supported by precedents such as “General Manager, B.E.S.T Undertaking, Bombay v. Mrs.Agnes [AIR 1964 SC 193]” and further cases.

Scope of Employment: The court found no impropriety in the Commissioner’s findings that the accident occurred in the course of the claimant’s employment, thereby justifying the compensation.

Decision: The appeal by The Oriental Insurance Company was dismissed, affirming the compensation to the bus conductor.

Date of Decision: 9th April 2024.

“The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Radhakrishnan & Others”,

Latest Legal News