Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Now, there can be no doubt that before an applicant under the Workmen's Compensation Act can succeed he must discharge the burden of proving (a) that there was an accident arose out of the employment".

Further, in the said decision, after observing that the first two of the abovesaid three requirements were satisfied in the said case, the court dealt with the third requirement as follows :

"The question is whether the applicant has discharged the burden with regard to the third ingredient an also what is the burden that the law places upon him with regard to that ingredient. In our opinion, once the applicant has established that the deceased was at a particular place and he was there because he had to be there by reason of his employment, and he further establishes that because he was there he met with an accident he has discharged the burden which the law places upon him. The law does not place an additional burden upon the applicant to prove that the peril which the employee faced and the accident which arose because of that peril which was not personal to him, but was shared by all the employees or the members of the public. Once the peril is established, it is for the employer then to established, it is for the employer then to establish either that the peril was brought about by the employee himself, that he added or extended the peril, or that the peril was not a general peril but a personal to the employee. It is because of this that the authorities have made it clear that the casual connection between the accident and the employment which the applicant has to establish is not a remote or ultimate connection, but a connection which is only proximate".
"In short, my view of the statute is that the expression "arising out of the employment" is not confined to the mere "nature of the employment". The expression, in my opinion, applies to the employment as such to its nature, its conditions, its obligations, and its incidents if by reason of any of these the workman is brought within the zone of special danger and so injured or killed, it appears to me that the broad words of the statute "arising out the employment" apply if the peril which he encountered was not an added peril produced by the workmen himself as in the case of Pluab v. Colidan Flour Mills Co., 1914 A. C. 62(B) and Barnes v. Sunnery Colliery Co., 1912 A. C. 44, in this House, then a case for compensation under the statute appears to arise". [italics supplied]

11. As already pointed out, it is in evidence that when the husband entered into the premises of the appellant-society, where his wife, the victim, was working and asked her to accompany him, the victim beat him and the husband then stabbed her, It is also in evidence, as already pointed out, that the husband and wife used to quarrel often. In the above circumstances, it is clear that not only the death was due to quarrels between the victim and her husband and the husband's animosity against the wife, but the victim-wife initially beat her husband and thereby provoked her husband to stab her. In the above circumstances, it is not difficult to hold that the appellant-employer has established that the "peril was brought about by the employee himself (herself) that he (she) added or extended the peril or that the peril was not a general peril, but a peril personal to the employee" as observed in the above referred to Bombay decision. That apart, it cannot be said in the present case that the claimants themselves have discharged their initial burden by establishing that becaused the deceased was at the work spot in question. She met with the above referred to stabbing by her husband and the resultant death. This initial burden of the claimants was also pointed out in the above referred to Bombay decision, as indicated above. Further, in the light of the abovesaid Madras Bench decision also, it cannot be said that on the facts of the present case, the occurrence in question "has some relation to the workmen's employment" and was "due to a risk incidental to that employment as distinguished from a risk to which all members of public were alike exposed". The event would not have taken place if there was some other employee in the place of the deceased.