SATYA POOT MEHROTRA,RAJESH CHANDRA,J - (1.) IT is submitted by Sri. Amit Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant that as per the findings recorded by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, the deceased (driver) met with an accident while going to his house for taking dinner with the alleged permission of the owner of the vehicle in question. It is submitted that even though the accident took place when the deceased (driver) was taking the truck from West Bengal to Ghaziabad but the same did not arise out of employment as at the time of the accident, the deceased was not engaged in any activity incidental to the duties of the service.
(2.) IT is submitted that the words "accident arising out of employment" have been interpreted to mean that the accident should take place while doing some activity involving risk incidental to the duties of the service. In the present case, the submission proceeds, the accident took place when deceased was going to take dinner at his house, and therefore his activity was not such which could be said to be incidental to the duties of the service.
(3.) RELIANCE has been placed by Sri. Amit Manohar on a decision of the Supreme Court in Malikarjuna G. Hiremath Vs. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2009 (2) T.A.C. 17 (S.C.).;