WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923

Facts: A claim was made by the legal heirs of one Kurien in respect of a motor accident, while the said Kurien was driving the vehicle. As he died in the accident, the claim was preferred by his legal heirs before the Claims Tribunal. But the claim was repelled on the ground that the accident happened due to the negligence of the deceased, Kurien.

Held: The employer is liable to pay compensation to his workman when he sustains personal injury by accident which arose out of and in course of employment. Section 3 creates such liability. The conduct of the workman in relation to the accident would only affect his entitlement to compensation in certain circumstances, but the liability of the employer would remain the same. Where the workmen has succumbed to injuries and has died, the legal heirs would become entitled to compensation whether or not the accident is attributable to the negligence of the workman.

Facts: An award was passed as compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 on account of injuries sustained by the workman in vehicular accident. An appeal was filed by the employer and Insurance Company against the award claiming that the workman was not entitled to compensation as he had not been totally disabled as envisioned by the Act.

Held: That the disablement which the worker suffered should be understood vis-a-vis the work he carried on or for which he was employed. If by the accident he becomes totally disabled to carry on that work, it is total disablement. The fact that he can do some other work elsewhere is no ground to state that he is not totally disabled. His disablement should be assessed with reference to work he was employed to perform at the time of accident. If by the accident, the worker loses his employment under his employer, thereby ceases to be a worker as defined under the Act under that particular employer which employment brought him under the purview of the Act and the relationship of employer worker is brought to an end, then that amounts to "total disablement" under the Act.

Facts: A seaman had been ill for a few days and he later went missing. His father claimed compensation for the death of his son. The Appellant disputed the respondent's claim on the ground that there was nothing to show that the seaman was in fact dead

Held: That "in the course of employment" means 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 course of employment injury has resulted from the 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. There must be a casual relationship between the accident and the employment. The expression "arising out of employment" is not confined to the mere nature of employment. The expression applied to employment as such to its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents.