Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"As the injury suffered arose out of an added peril to which the fitter had voluntarily and unnecessarily exposed himself, it did not arise out of and in the course of his employment and he was not entitled to compensation".

12. In Bhurangya Coal Co's case, AIR 1956 Pat 299 it was held that:

"The principle of added peril contemplates that if a workman while doing his master's work undertakes to do something which he is not ordinarily called upon to do and which involves extra danger he cannot hold his Master liable for the risks arising therefrom. This doctrine, therefore, comes into play only when the workman is at the time of meeting the accident performing his duty." However, on the facts of that case the defence of added peril was found to have no foundation. It was established in that case that the deceased workman had at that time gone from incline 24 to incline 25 to do something which was a part of his usual job and through a route not forbidden; and while he was on his way back from there he suddenly saw the rake of tubs coming up towards him. At that he tried to avoid the danger but the space there being narrow, the attempt failed.

"There was evidence to support the finding of the arbitrator that the risk taken by the driver was not incidental to his employment, but was an added peril due to his own voluntary conduct, and accordingly, that the accident did not arise out of the employment."

In that case Lord Shaw of Dunfermline after making the following observations that "Of added peril and the cluster of cases around that phrase I would beg to be allowed to say that there are no inconsiderable dangers of an erroneous development of the law by making added peril a sole test and therefrom a settled and conclusive category of cases which are excluded from the 'remedial' operation of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Granted an extra hazard, it is not enough to dub it an added peril and to follow me cases; the true inquiry may be only beginning. On the one hand a fundamental question is, was the course taken by the workman prompted by his own indolence or purely for his own convenience and not in the interests of the work, say, by effectiveness or dispatch? If so then the extra hazard is not only an added peril but a needless peril and an arbitrator is free to find that the accident did not arise out of the employment.

15. This case, therefore, establishes that no matter how negligent or rash the workman's action, it arises out of the employment if it is within the scope of his duty as an employee.

16. The expression "arising out of employment" is not confined to the "nature of employment" but applies to the employment as such to its nature, its conditions, its obligations, and its incidents (vide Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in Mrs. Margaret Thorn or Simpson y. Sinclair, 1917 AC 127. Therefore, to find whether the death was caused by added peril, the relevant enquiry to make is whether the thing was within the sphere of employment and incidental to it. Whether it was in the interest of the work of the employer and was simply done carelessly or negligently. If the answer to the above is in the affirmative, then the accident would be said to be out of and in the course of employment and the plea of added peril would fail. On the other hand, if the answer is in the negative and if it is found that thing was foreign to the scope of employment, i.e., something to which the workman voluntarily exposed himself not about the business of the employer but about his own business then it would not be out of employment and it would be a case of added peril.