B.E.S.T. Undertaking v. Agnes

By FG LawKit

On July 20, 1957, Nanu Raman, a bus driver employed by B.E.S.T. Undertaking (a public transport body in Greater Bombay), was fatally injured in an accident.
The driver was returning home after completing his work, travelling on a B.E.S.T. bus when it collided with a stationary lorry.
The undertaking allowed drivers to travel free of charge to and from their homes as they had to report for work punctually every day.
Importantly, the driver was only allowed to travel in his capacity as an employee and was not allowed to occupy any seat even on regular fare, meaning he was travelling as an employee, not as a member of the public.
The widow of the deceased driver claimed compensation for the accident under the relevant law (Workmen's Compensation Act).

When does an employment begin and when does it cease?
Whether the accident occurred "in the course of his employment," thereby entitling the widow to compensation.

The apex court held by majority that the travel was part of the deceased driver's employment.
The appeal was decided in favour of the claimant (the deceased driver's widow), upholding the compensation awarded.

General Rule (Notional Extension Theory): The Court observed that generally, a workman is not in the course of his employment from the moment he leaves his home. Employment is held to be "in the course of employment" if the accident happens at the place of work or at a point or area which comes within the theory of notional extension, outside of which the employer is not liable.
Application to the Case (Majority View): The user by the driver of the buses belonging to the undertaking to go to the depot from his house and vice versa was by way of a proved necessity and gave rise to an implied obligation on his part to travel in the said buses as a part of his duty.
The "Premises" Extension: While the doctrine of notional extension typically applies to limited premises like a factory, in the case of a city transport service, the entire fleet of buses forming the service would be the premises by analogy. Hence, a driver using the bus to go home or come to the depot suffers an accident in the course of his employment.

(Raghubar Dayal, J., dissenting): Travel by buses belonging to the undertaking by the drivers to go to the depot from their homes and vice versa could not, in the circumstances of the instant case, be considered as part of their duty or as a condition of their service. The relevant rules could not be construed to artificially extend the period of the driver's duty and consequently the course of their employment.

Contractual Duty/Obligation: A contractual duty or obligation on the part of an employer to use only a particular means of transport extends the area of the field of employment to the course of the said transport.
Scope of Extension: The scope of notional extension must necessarily depend on the circumstances of a given case, covering both the entry and exit by time and space.