MALLIKARJUNA G. HIREMATH versus BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.& ANR.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 320 · Decided: 12-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 320 
A 
MALLIKARJUNA G. HIREMATH 
~ ,, 
V. 
BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.& 
,,, 
ANR. 
Civil Apeal No. 956 Of 2009 
B 
FEBRUARY 12, 2006 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, 
~ 
JJ] 
~ 
Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 : 
c 
s.3(1) - Driver of vehicle on direction of employer-owner 
of insured vehicle went to temple alongwith passengers -
Slipped on the steps of the pond inside the 'temple, and fell 
into pond and died due to drowning - Liability of employer to 
D pay compensation - Held: Not liable - There was no casual 
connection between the death of the workman and his 
employment. 
Words and Phrases: 'accident', injury, 'in the course of 
employment' and 'arising out of employment' - Meaning of, in 
E the context of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. 
The claimant-respondent 2 was the wife of the 
deceased who was employed as a driver of the appellant. 
The deceased took the vehicle along with the passengers 
-t 
... , 
F 
to a temple as per the directions of the appellant. At ~he 
temple, the deceased went to the pond. He slipped there 
and drowned. The claim petition was filed on the ground 
that death of the deceased h~d occurred during the 
course of and in the employment under the appellant. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant-employer 
contended that the death was not occasioned during and 
\I 
in the course of the employment. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
320 
,. 
MALLIKARJUNA G. HIREMATH V. BRANCH MANAGER, 321 
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.& ANR. 
....(" 
~ 
HELD: 1. Under Section 3(1) of the Workmen A 
Compensation Act, 1923, it has to be established that there 
was some casual connection between the death of the 
workman and his employment. If the workman dies a 
natural death because of the disease which he was 
suffering or while suffering from a particular disease he B 
dies of that disease as a result of wear and tear of the 
employment, no liability would be fixed upon the employer. 
But if the employment is a contributory cause or has 
accelerated the death, or if the death was not only due to 
the disease but also the disease coupled with the c 
employment, then it can be said that the death arose out 
of the employment and the employer would be liable. [Para 
9] [ 326-F, G] 
2.1. The expression "accident" means an untoward 
"" 
mishap which is not expected or designed. "Injury" means D 
... 
physiological injury. [Para 10] [ 326-G, H] 
Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Ne/lore and Anr. 2006 
(5) sec 51·3 - relied on. 
Fenton v. Thorley & Co. Ltd. (1903) AC 448; Trim Joint 
District, School Board of _Management v. Kelly (1914) A. C. 
E 
676; ES/ Corpn. v. Francis De Costa 1996 (6) SCC 1 ; Dover 
Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Isabella Craig 1940 AC 190; Fenton 
~ 
"' 
(Pauper) v. J. Thorley & Co. Ltd. 1903 AC 443 - referred to. 
2.2. An accident may lead to death but an accident 
took place must be proved. Only because a death has F 
taken place in course of employment would not amount 
to accident. In other words, death must arise out of 
accident. There is no presumption that an accident had 
occurred. In a case of this nature to prove that accident 
has taken place, factors which would have to be G 
.. 
established are: stress and strain arising during the 
• 
course of employment, nature of employment, injury 
aggravated due to stress and strain. [Paras 15, 16] [ 329-
8, C, D] 
G.M., B.E.S. T Undertaking v. Agnes 1964 (3) SCR 930; H 
322 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Saurashtra Salt Mfg. Co. v Bai Valu Raja AIR 1958 SC 881 -
I>- . 
relied on. 
Jenkins v Elder Dempster Lines Ltd. 1953 (2) All ER 1133 
-referred to. 
B 
2.3. To come within the Act, the injury by accident 
must arise both out of and in the course of employment. 
The words 'in the course of the employment' mean 'in the 
course of the work which the workman is employed to do 
and which is incidental to it'. The words 'arising out of 
.~ 
employment' are understood to mean that 'during the 
c course of the employment, injury has resulted from some 
risk incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless 
engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable 
to believe the workman would not otherwise have 
suffered'. In other words there must be a causal 
D 
relationship between the accident and the employment. 
)a. 
't 
The expression 'arising out of employment' is again not 
confined to the mere nature of the employment. The 
expression applies to employment as such-to its
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.