The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Poonam Devi & Others on 9 May, 2014
If yes, the accident arose out of his employment, if no, it did not. The word "employment" again is not to be defined in a narrow manner by reference only to the duties of the workman; but the character, conditions, incidents and special risks involved in the employment, would have to be taken into consideration in order to find out whether the accident arose out of and in course of the workman's employment. In the instant case, the act of fetching water from a flowing canal or of bathing in the canal, cannot be said to be an act which was incidental to the employment. No doubt, there may be a case where the workman is injured as a result of natural force such as lightening though in itself has no connection with employment, but the claim can be sustained by showing that such employment exposed the person to such injury, as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Ram Prasad and another : 2001 (9) SCC 395. But here, it cannot be said that deceased's employment as a driver would expose him to fetching water or taking bath in a flowing canal, particularly, when it is not shown that there was no other source of water available in the vicinity than the canal itself. Fetching water from a canal or taking a bath in the canal is nothing but an added peril to which the driver and the cleaner had exposed themselves to, even though it was not incidental to their employment.