DAYA KISHAN JOSHI & ANR. versus DYNEMECH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.

DAYA KISHAN JOSHI & ANR. versus DYNEMECH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.

The accident arose out of and in the course of employment because the nature of the deceased’s employment made it necessary for him to travel to Haryana and return after completing his official assignment. There is no material on record to show that the deceased exposed himself to added peril by his own imprudent act. The notional extension principle applies, and the accident falls squarely within Section 3(1) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.

Parties
Appellant: Daya Kishan Joshi; Respondent: Dynemech Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against Delhi High Court Decision Confirming Commissioner’s Dismissal of Compensation Claim
Outcome
Appeal disposed; findings returned to Commissioner under the Act for deciding remaining issues.
Legal Topics
Employee's Compensation, Accident During Employment, Employer's Liability, Notional Extension of Employment, Causal Connection Between Accident and Employment
Labour and Employment Law Employee's Compensation Accident During Employment Employer's Liability Notional Extension of Employment Causal Connection Between Accident and Employment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daya Kishan Joshi

Appellant

Dynemech Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against Delhi High Court Decision Confirming Commissioner’s Dismissal of Compensation Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accident occurred 'arising out of' and 'in the course of employment' under Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
  2. 2 Whether the deceased falls under the definition of workman under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation as per claim application

Ratio Decidendi

The accident arose out of and in the course of employment because the nature of the deceased’s employment made it necessary for him to travel to Haryana and return after completing his official assignment. There is no material on record to show that the deceased exposed himself to added peril by his own imprudent act. The notional extension principle applies, and the accident falls squarely within Section 3(1) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed; findings returned to Commissioner under the Act for deciding remaining issues.

Orders

  • Matter returned to Commissioner to decide remaining issues.
  • No costs.