DAYA KISHAN JOSHI & ANR. versus DYNEMECH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2017] 7 S.C.R. 587 · Decided: 09-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017) 7 S.C.R. 587 
DAYA KISHAN JOSHI & ANR. 
v. 
DYNEMECH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No.10265 of2017) 
AUGUST 09, 2017 
· [R.K. AGRAWAL AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.I 
A 
B 
Employee's Compensation Act, 192 3 (Earlier known as 
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923) - ss.3(1), 4(l)(a) -Accident c 
'arising out of' and 'in the course of employment' - Two persons 
employed with respondent-company as engineer/sales executive were 
deputed to test a filter installed in a factory, for which both of them 
went from Delhi to Haryana - While returning from Haryana, both 
employees met with an accident, consequent to which one employee 
died and the other sustained injuries - Application for compensation D 
filed by appellant (father of deceased employee) before the 
Commissioner - Application was dismissed on the ground that the 
accident cannot be said to have arisen out of and in course of 
employment - High Court confirmed the award passed by the 
Commissioner - On appeal, held: There is no material on record to 
E 
show that the deceased employee had exposed himself to added 
peril by his own imprudent act - When an employment begins and 
· when it ceases, depends upon the facts of each case - There is a 
notional extension at both entry and exit by time and space - Jn the 
instant case, the accident arose out of and in cqurse of employment 
inasmuch as the very nature of the employment of the deceased F 
made it necessary for him to be on the road in question. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The words 'arising out of' u/s. 3(1) of the 
Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (Earlier known as 
G 
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923) and 'in the course of 
employment' u/s. 4(1)(a) of the Act are in fac"t two different phrases 
and have been understood as such. If the accident had occurred 
on account of a risk which is an incident of employment, the claim 
shall succeed unless, of course, the workman had exposed himself H 
587 
588 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A to an added peril by his own imprudent act. The phrase 'in the 
course of employment' suggests that the injury must be caused 
during the currency of employment, whereas the expression 'out 
of employment' conveys the idea that there must be a causal 
connection between the employment and the injury caused to 
B 
c 
the workman as a result of the accident. Prima facie, while 
deciding the issue on hand, there is no material on record to 
show that the deceased workman had exposed himself to added 
peril by his own imprudent act. [Para 6) [592-F-H; 593-A) 
2.1 When a workman is on the public road or public place 
or on public transport he is there as any other member of the 
public and is not there in the course of his employment unless 
the very nature of his employment makes it necessary for him to 
be there. In other words, there must be a causal relationship 
between the accident and the employment. The expression 'out 
of employment' is not confined to the mere nature of the 
D employment: the expression applies to employment as such, to 
its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents. The 
words "arising out of employment" are understood to mean that 
during the course of employment, the injury has resulted from 
some risk incidental to the duties. Unless engaged in the duty 
E 
owed to the employer, it is reasonable to believe that the workman 
would not otherwise have suffered. [Para 7) [593-B-C) 
2.2 There cannot be any dispute that the question as to 
when an employment begins and when it ceases, depends upon 
the facts of each case. There is a notional extension at both 
F 
entry and exit by time and space. There may be some reasonable 
extension in both time and space and a workman may be regarded 
as in the course of his employment even though he has not 
reached or has left employer's premises. [Para 7] [593-D-E] 
3. In the case on hand, the deceased was employed as an 
G engineer, assigned the duty of promoting the sales and installation 
of the products of the respondent company. It is not in dispute 
that a product was installed on the day prior to the accident at the 
Factory situated at Dharu Heda in the State of Haryana which is 
about 70 kms .from Delhi ~tate. It is also not in dispute that the 
deceased on the instruction and direction of the respondent, left 
H 
DAYA KISHAN JOSHI & ANR. v. DYNEMECH 
589 
SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. 
for the field work assigned to him. After completing the necessary · A 
work assig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.