Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27. Mr. Bhattacharyya had also relied on the decision of Parle Products. Limited v. Subir Mukherjee reported in (2000) 2 Cal. H.N. 766. In the said decision, the test for determination as to whether the accident could be held to have arisen out of employment is that the workman is, in fact, employed or performing the duties of his employment at the time of accident. Another test would be that the accident occurred at or about the place where the performance of his duties required him to be present. It is a case where the accident involved the reason common to all humanity and did not involve any peculiarity or exceptional damage resulting from the nature of employment or where the accident was the result of an added peril to which the workman, by his own conduct, exposed himself and which peril was not involved in the normal performance of the duties of his employment. This decision had relied on the decisions in the case of Armstrong Withworth & Co. v. Redford reported in 1920 A.C. 757 at 780; Mcculhum v. North Umbrain Shipping Co. reported in (1932) 147 L.T. 361, and Cardillo v. Liberty Mutua Insurance Co. reported in 330 U.S. 469. In order to arrive at the above conclusion, it had also relied on a Full Bench decision of the Assam High Court in Assam Railway and Trading Co. Ltd. v. Saraswati Devi reported in A.I.R. 1963 Assam 127, and Smt. Rita Devi and Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Limited reported in II (2000) ACC 291 (SC) : 2000 A.I.R. S.C.W. 1579.