LexMACKINNON MACKENZIE & CO. PVT. LTD. versus IBRAHIM MAHOMMED ISSAK
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
c
])
E
F
G
MACKINNON MACKENZIE & CO. PVT. LTD.
V.
IBRAHIM MAHOl\'IMED ISSAK
August 14, 1969
869
[J.C. SHAH, ACTING C.J., V. RAMASWAW AKD A. N. GRO'TF, JJ.]
JVurk1nen's
Compensation Act
18 of 1923, s, 3-"ln 11'1e ( ~-u:·.-:e of
c1np!oy1nent"-"Arising out of e1np!oyn1ent", nienning of.
S \Vho was cn1ploycd as a deck-hmid on
~~ ~bip was found n~j~.'-ing on
boc.rd.
The respondent filed an application under s. 3 of the \'1'orkmen's
Con1pcnsation Act claiming compens~tion for t?i~ death of S which accord-
ing: to him occurred on account of a personal injury caused hy an accident
arising out of and irf the course of c1np:oymcnt.
The Additivn;:il C0n1-
missioner held that there was no evidence to .,now that the ~c8_n1an was
C:cad and there was in any event no evidence to justify the infe;cnce that
tbc death of the sea,man was caused by an accident which <1ro~e out of
employment.
The }{igh Court reversed the judgment of the :\Jditional
Commissioner.
In appeal to, this Cou11,
HELD : The Additional Commis'iioner di<l not commit nn-.· error of
htw in reaching his findings and the High Court was not justifictl jn revers-
ing them.
To come within the Act the injury by accident must arise hoth out of
and in the course. of employn1ent.
The words "in the course of employ-
ment" mean in tlJe course of work which the \VOrkman is employed to do
and which is incidenta:l to it. The words "arising out of the employment"
are understood to mean that during the course of the employment, injury
h<•S resulted from ·SOJlle risk incidental to the duties of the service, which,
unless engaged in the duty O\\'ing to the ma~tcr, it is reasonable to believe
the workman would.,Jlot otherwise have suffered.
The expres:;ion is not
confined to the mete: liature of the employment but applies to the employ·
ment as such-to its:nature, its conditions, its ob1igations and it<; incidents.
f872 HJ
Although the On1,1s of proving t'hat the injury by accident arose both
out of and in the course of employment rests upon the app1icant these
essentials may be inferred when the facts proved justify the inference.
l1n the one hand the Commissioner must not surmise, conjecture or guess~
on the other band he may draw an infe'rence from the proved facts so
long as it is a Jegitim.ate inference. The evidence must be such ;,, would
induce a reasonable tnan to draw the inference. [873 HJ
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co. v. lliRhley,
[1917) /\.C. 352,
Lancaster v. Blackwell Colliery Co. Ltd. 1918 W.C. Rep. 345. Kerr nr
Lendrun1 v. Ayr Steam Shipping Co. Ltd.
[1915]
A.C. 217, R1•11der v.
Owners of S. S. "Zeni" [1909] 2 K.B. 41, Marshall v. Own,•rs uj S. S.
"Wild Rose", [19091 2 K.B. 46, Rice v. Owners of Ship '·swanst•a Vall' .. ,
[1912] A.C. 238, Ga/Jon v. Limerick Steamship Co.
[1910] 2 J.R. 5(·1,
Rourke v. Hold & Co. [1917] 2 Ir. Rep. 'HS at 321
and Simrson
v.
L.M. & S. Roi/way Co. [1931] A.C. 351, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISD!CT!O.\l'; Civil Appeal No. 850 of
1966.
870
SUPREME UOURT REPORTS
( 1970] l S.C.R
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated
A
March 5, 1965 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 415
of 1963.
S. Sorabji, Bl111va11esh Kumari and J. B. Dadachanji, for the
appdlaut.
The respondent did not appear.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswaml, J. This appeal is brought by special leave from
the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated March 5, 1965 in
Appeal No. 415 of 1963.
Shaikh Hassan Ibrahim (hereinafter refcrrea to as the misswg
seaman) was employed as a deck-baud" a seaman of category II
on the ship ss. "Dwarka" which is owr.ed by the British India
Steam Navigation Company Limited of which the appellant is the
Agent.
The Medical Log Book of the shop shows that on Decem-
ber 13, 1961 the missing seaman complained of pain in the ctest
and wa<, therefore, examined, but nothing abnormal was detected
clinically.
The Medical Officer on board the ship prescribed some
tablets for the missing seaman and he reported tit for work on
the next day.
On December 15, 1961, however, he complained
of insomnia and pain in the chest for which the Medical Officer
prescribed sedative tablets.
The official Log Book of the ship
shows that on December 16, 1961 when the ship was in the Per-
sian Gulf the missing seaman was seen near the bridge of the ship
at about 2.30 a.m.
He was sent back but at 3 a.m. he was seen
on the Tween Deck whExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.