A jeep driver of the Bank took the officers of the Bank to a village in connection with recovery proceedings conducted by the Bank. He rested the jeep in the rest house and went to the market, where he was assaulted by s

Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 provides that if personal injury is caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation. In the given case, the risk incurred by the driver for going to the market was incidental to his employment of taking the jeep to the village. The jeep driver, in this case, was on duty in the village, therefore, the accident must be taken to be arising out of the course of employment. The death caused was a result of an accident out of and during the course of his employment, and as such, the respondents were liable to pay the compensation. The relevant case in this regard is, Salama Begum v/s. District Branch Manager, 1990 1" LLJ. 112 (Born). In the case of Mackenzie v. I.M. Issak, it was observed that the words arising out of employment means that injury has resulted from risk incidental to the duties of the service which unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe that the workman would not otherwise have suffered. There must be a casual relationship between the accident and the employment. If the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of the employment, the claim for compensation must succeed unless of course the workman has exposed himself to do an added peril by his own imprudence.