01.2026 HDFC Ergo Company L C Ergo General Insurance pany Limited v. Umed Sing d Singh & Ors.

ehalf of the appellant that in the FIR he FIR lodged on the statement of th t of the applicant, , it was specifically stated that the hat the deceased was doing agricultur icultural work but t but thereafter while filing the prese present petition, version was change changed claiming th ing that he was employed as a driver. river. He submits that in the absence sence of there being being any written evidence to prove prove the contract of employment, th ent, the Commissio missioner erred in ignoring material c erial contradiction in the version of th n of the claimants. ants. She further submits that the f t the fact that the deceased died whi d while going to R Rewari proves the fact of there b there being no contract of employme loyment between res eased. een respondent No.1 and the deceased. [5] Per contra, learned counsel ounsel for the respondents-claiman laimants submits tha its that the best person to dispute th ute the contract of employment is th nt is the employer. oyer. Employer, who was arraigned igned as respondent No.1, filed writte written statement, ment, wherein he specifically admitte dmitted that the deceased was workin working as a driver driver and was employed just 3-4 days 4 days prior to the accident. It has bee as been contended t nded that minor contradictions that to that too in the statement made by fath y father of the dece e deceased who is a rustic, illiterate a erate agriculturist cannot be relied upo ed upon in view of ew of there being a categorical clear clear admission on behalf of employe ployer. He further rther submits that the deceased having having gone to fetch cover during rain ng rainy season for for the goods loaded in the truck, , that too, on the instructions of th s of the employer c oyer cannot be said to be out of the sp sphere of employment. [6] I have heard counsel for the or the parties and have carefully gon through rec gh record of the case. [7] Trite it is that under 1923 Act 23 Act, the contract of employment ca ent can be written ritten or oral, expressed or implied. plied. Trite it is that FIR is not not an RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.21 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5786-2015 2015 (O&M) 3 encycloped clopedia of the entire facts involving th ving the case. [8] In the present case, employer ployer filed written statement, where wherein he admitted mitted of having employed deceased j eased just 3-4 days prior to the acciden ccident. No evidenc vidence was led by the Insurance Com e Company to rebut the same. In vie n view thereof, th of, this Court does not find any reaso reason to interfere in the well reason easoned findings re ngs recorded by the Commissioner sioner holding that the deceased wa ed was employee o oyee of respondent No.1 as admission ission is the best piece of evidence. [9] The issue with respect to doc to doctrine of notional extension whi n while interpreting preting the expression “during the c the course of employment” has bee as been elaborately rately explained by this Court in urt in ‘Reliance General Insuranc surance Company ny Limited versus Pyari and a and another’, FAO No.940 of 201 of 2016 pronounce ounced on 04.10.2024, observing as u as under:- “20. Thus, the afore foresaid precedents relating o t application of ‘notional exten extension’ the following propositio sitions emerge:- (i) (ii) As a rule, th le, the employment of an employee do e does not commen mence until he has reached the place lace of employment ent and does not continue after leaves the pl he place of employment. However, this this is subject to th to the theory of notional extension of t of the employer's p r's premises; Theory of no of notional extension connotes that the t there may be som some reasonable extension in both tim h time & place. An . An employee may be regarded to be be in the course o rse of employment even though he ha e had not reached (iii) An employe hed or had left the employer's premise mises; loyee while on public road or in publ public RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.21 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document place or in a in a public transport, is present there ere as a member o er of public and not in the course rse of employmen ent unless f very nature of t employment ent necessarily requires for him to to be FAO-5786-2015 2015 (O&M) 4 there. The t he test for determining is “whether her he was within t hin the sphere of area of employment ent or not”; and (iv) The acciden cident must have a causal connectio ection with the emp employment.” [10] Applying the aforesaid param parameters to the factual matrix of th of the present cas nt case, this Court finds merit in the in the contention raised by counsel fo nsel for the claiman laimants that an employee answering ering the call of the employer has to b as to be presumed t med to be within the sphere of employ loyment. [11] In view thereof, this Court fin urt finds that the Commissioner right r rightly awarded co ded compensation to the claimants fo ants for death of Satpal in an accide accident arising out g out of and during the course of emp f employment. [12] Finding no merits in the prese present appeal, the same is ordered dered to be dismisse smissed. [13] All pending miscellaneous neous application(s), if any, stand stands disposed of ed off. .2026 12.01.2026 ‘R. Sharma' (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.21 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document