Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The expression 'arising out of employment' is not confined to the mere nature of the employment. It applies to employment as such to its nature, its conditions, its obligations and' its incidents. If by reason of any of those factors the workman is brought within the zone of special danger, the injury would be one arising out of employment. To put it differently, if the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of employment, the claim for compensation must succeed, unless of course, the workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act.

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 the applicant further establishes that because the deceased was there he met with an accident the applicant 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 due to that peril 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 establish 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 peril personal to the employee.

It was thus observed that once the peril is established it is for me employer then to establish 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 peril personal to the employee.

35. There is yet another decision under the Workmen's Compensation Act. This is reported as Jayamma v. C. Munikrishnappa . The workman was employed as a taxi driver. He was murdered at the place where he had taken the taxi. Insurance Company contended that death did not arise in the course of employment as it was a homicidal death and there was no nexus between the death and employment. Following the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Union of India v. Shantaben, 1985 ACJ 818 (Gujarat), the view expressed was that as the driver was driving the taxi under the employment of the employer, therefore, he would be entitled to compensation.