Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"The words "in the course of the employment" mean "in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it". The words "arising out of employment" are understood to mean that "during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered". There must be casual relationship between the accident and the employment. If the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of the employment, the claim for compensation must succeed, unless of course the workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act."

18. In this case, the claimant has specifically contended that he was working as a driver under the owner of the lorry and in that connection he had taken the lorry to the garage for changing the oil & applying grease. While he was trying to remove the tyre after he lifted the vehicle the jacky slipped and the vehicle fell on him. The owner has not filed any objection but the insurance company contended that he was not the driver of the respondent. This argument cannot be accepted in view of the suggestion put in the course of his cross-examination as to whether he surrendered the driving licence, etc. and that suggestion was only to show that he is not able to work as a driver. In support of his contention that he was working as a driver, he has produced Ex. P-8 the driving licence. In the absence of any denial by the employer, it can be inferred that the claimant was working under the respondent as his driver. Being a driver, it was his duty and responsibility to maintain the lorry in good and road worthy condition. Greasing and applying oil is undoubtedly essential for smooth running of the lorry. For that purpose only he had taken the lorry to the garage. He put the lorry on to jockey to remove the tyre as the cleaner was not present on that day. He has stated in his evidence that it is the duty of the lorry cleaner. It is common knowledge that the tyres are replaced by both the cleaner and the driver of the vehicle. So he has ventured to help the garage people to remove the tyre instead of whiling away his time in the garage, it is not the job which the drivers do not do. It is neither suggested to him in the cross-examination nor it can be inferred that he had exposed himself to one added peril by his own independent act. Therefore, it has to be held that during the course of the employment injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties as the driver. The risk incidental to the duties cannot be in straight jacket formula, but depending on facts of each case. Such being the case, it is now necessary to refer to the medical evidence rendered by the parties in this case.