Case: Mallikarjuna G. Hiremath Vs. Branch Mgr.,Oriental Insurance Co.L.&amp;Ors

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The appellant was the owner of the vehicle of which the deceased was employed as a driver. Respondent No.2 filed a Claim Petition inter-alia stating as follows:Her husband Veeresh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was working as a driver in a truck bearing No.KA 34 1183. He left Siraguppa to go to Gurugunta Amreshwara Temple along with certain passengers as per the directions of the present appellant. When the vehicle reached Gurugunta, the deceased went to the pond and while taking bath at a pit, he had slipped and fell down and had drowned and breathed his lastThe Claim Petition was filed taking the stand that the death of the deceased had occurred during the course of and within the employment under the appellant. The vehicle was the subject matter of insurance with the insurer and, therefore, it was claimed that the insurer was liable to pay the compensation as the risk of the driver was covered under the policy. The Commissioner, Bellary by his order dated 11.7.2002 allowed the petition and determined the compensation payable at Rs.2,20,046/- with 12% interest. It was held that the insurer was liable to pay the compensation. Insurer filed an appeal before the High Court. As noted above, the stand taken by both the insurer and the appellant was that there was no connection between the accident causing death of the workman and the vehicle and, therefore, neither the insurer nor the insured had any liability to pay any compensation. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the insurer holding that there was no casual connection and therefore the insurance company was not liable. Further, the High Court granted the liberty to recover the compensation awarded from the appellant.

Reasoning:
There are a large number of English and American decisions, some of which have been taken note of in ESI Corpn.s case (supra) in regard to essential ingredients for such finding and the tests attracting the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The principles are:(1) There must be a causal connection between the injury and the accident and the accident and the work done in the course of employment(2) The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the work and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated the injury(3) If the evidence brought on records establishes a greater probability which satisfies a reasonable man that the work contributed to the causing of the personal injury, it would be enough for the workman to succeed, but the same would depend upon the fact of each caseAn accident may lead to death but that an accident had taken place must be proved. Only because a death has taken place in course of employment will not amount to accident. In other words, death must arise out of accident. There is no presumption that an accident had occurredIn a case of this nature to prove that accident has taken place, factors which would have to be established, inter alia, are:(1) stress and strain arising during the course of employment,(3) injury aggravated due to stress and strainIt is the specific case of the claimants that on 30.11.2000 the deceased who was driving the vehicle on the direction of the insured had gone to Gurugunta from Siraguppa. There he had gone to a temple and was sitting on the steps of the pond in the temple and he slipped and fell into the water and died due to drowning. This according to us is not sufficient in view of the legal principles delineated above to fasten liability on either the insurer or the insured. The High Court was not justified in holding that the present appellant was liable to pay compensation.