Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.19 seconds)
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Philo And Ors. on 1 February, 1996 cites

Varkeyachan vs Thomman on 8 September, 1978

In the decision reported in Varkeyachan v. Thomman (supra) referred to already by us, this Court has accepted the test laid down by Lord Sumner in Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway v. Highley 1917 AC 352 and approved by the Supreme Court in M.Mackenzie v. I.M. Issak (1970-I-LLJ-16) in the case of a claim by the legal representatives of a deceased workman which we may quote here usefully, at p. 19 "There is, however, in my opinion, one test which is always at any rate applicable, because it arises upon the very words of the Statute, and it is generally of some real assistance. It is this: Was it part of the injured person's employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do that which caused his injury? If yes, the accident arose out of his employment. If nay, it did not, because, what it was not part of the employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do, cannot well be the cause of an accident arising out of the employment. To ask if the-cause of this was within the sphere of the employment or was one of the ordinary risks of the employment, or reasonably incidental to the employment, or conversely, was an added peril and outside the sphere of the employment, are all different ways of asking whether it was a part of his employment, that the workman should have acted as he was acting, or should have been in the position in which he was, whereby in the course of that employment he sustained injury"
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1