MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR,J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The judgment dated 23rd April 2014 passed in FAO No. 349 of 2011 by the High Court of Delhi is called in question in this appeal by the unsuccessful claimants. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the award passed by the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (Known earlier as the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 until 2009) (for brevity "the Act") dismissing the claimants' petition on the ground that the accident cannot be said to have arisen out of and in the course of employment.
(3.) Records reveal that the deceased workman Shri Ravi Shekhar Joshi, son of the appellant, was employed with respondent (Dynemech Systems Pvt. Ltd.) as an engineer. He was entrusted with the duty to be in the field for promoting the sales/installation of the products of the respondent. On the unfortunate day of the accident, i.e., 08.09.2007, the deceased and his co-worker Shri Vikas (who was also employed as an engineer/sales executive) were deputed to test a filter which was installed on 07.09.2007 at Hero Honda Factory, Dharu Heda, Haryana. Accordingly, both of them went from Delhi and checked the filter installed at Hero Honda Factory, Dharu Heda, Haryana in the afternoon and thereafter started the return journey to Delhi at 4:30 PM. Both the workers including the deceased met with road accident while they were little away from Hero Honda Factory and sustained injuries. Both were taken to the hospital wherein the deceased was declared "brought dead" while his co-worker was discharged after being given first-aid. The appellants filed an application for compensation under Section 22 of the Act before the Learned Commissioner. Based on the pleadings, the Learned Commissioner framed the following issues. 1 Whether the accident of the deceased occurred during the course of and out of employment? 2 Whether the deceased falls under the definition of workman under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923? 3 If so, whether the claimant is entitled for compensation as per claim application? 4 Relief, if any? After the full-fledged trial, written arguments were submitted on 30th January, 2010. The Commissioner, after a wait of about 14 months dismissed the claim application of the appellants by deciding issue no. 1 only, on the ground that the accident cannot be said to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. The said award of dismissal of the claim petition was confirmed by the High Court as mentioned supra.;