The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a causal connection between the injury and the accident, and the accident and the work done in the course of employment, as emphasized under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Deepak Gupta, J.

The short question which arises in this appeal is, whether there is any causal connection between the death of the deceased workman and his employment? The undisputed facts are that the deceased Sh. Bal Chand was employed as a driver of a Tanker No. MH-05-K7740 with one Sh. Prabhu K. Chandani. According to the owner, this Tanker was being used to spread Tar coal on the road as damper. It appears that to liquefy the tar coal some fire had been lit and the boiler exploded and the tar coal fell on the deceased and he died as a result of the injury sustained.

2. The claimants i.e. widow and children of the deceased filed a petition for grant of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The claim petition was resisted by the Insurance Company mainly on the ground that there was no connection between the employment of the deceased and incident. Sh. Deepak Bhasin, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has forcefully urged that the onus was on the claimants to show that deceased suffered injuries in question during the course of employment. He submits that in fact the deceased was a driver and the accident did not take place while he was driving the vehicle but took place when he was warming himself near the fire lit up below the boiler of the tanker as is apparent from the reply filed by the owner of the vehicle.

3. Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act provides that when a personal injury is caused to the workman by an accident arising out of or in the course of employment, his employer is liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The expression 'arising out of and in the course of employment', has been the subject matter of consideration in a large number of cases.

4. In Mackinnon Mackenzie and Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ritta Farnandes, (1969) ACJ 419, the Apex Court while dealing with this phrase held as follows :

It is well established that u/s 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act there must be some causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment. If the workman does as a natural result of the disease from which he was suffering of while suffering from a particular disease he dies of that disease as a result of wear and tear of his employment, no liability would be fixed upon the employer. But if the employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the death, or his death was due not only to the disease but the disease coupled with the employment then it could be said that the death arose out of the employment and the employer would be liable. Even if a workman dies from a pre-existing disease, if the disease is aggravated or accelerated under circumstances which can be said to be accident, his death results from injury by accident.

5. In Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak, (1969) 2 SCC 607, the Apex Court held as follows:

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 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 relationship between the accident and the employment. 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 nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents. If by reason of any of those factors the workman is brought within the zone of special danger, the injury would be one which arises 'out of employment'. To put it differently, if the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an