The case is relating to Compensation under Section 3 of Employees' Compensation Act. In the matter the appeal was filed by the employer against the judgement of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The material facts w

The case is relating to Compensation under Section 3 of Employees' Compensation Act. In the matter the appeal was filed by the employer against the judgement of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The material facts which have given rise to this appeal is briefly stated as mentioned below. The deceased was employed as a driver on a truck of the appellant which used to carry petrol tank. The deceased reported to the appellant that the tank was leaking upon which the appellant got the tank partly filled with water at night and ordered the deceased to check it on the next morning. On the next morning i.e., on 10th January, 2016, the deceased entered the tank to see from where it leaked and lighted a match stick as a result of which it caught fire and the deceased received burns due to which he succumbed subsequently. The evidence produced on behalf of respondent was that the match box supplied to the deceased by the appellant. But this fact was denied by the appellant in his deposition and in the opinion of the learned Commissioner it was doubtful that the appellant had given the match box to the deceased though no reasons are given for the aforesaid conclusion. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends: (i) That in the present case the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the deceased's employment and it occurred due to the 'added peril' that is the lighting of match stick within the petrol tank by him. (ii) That the Commissioner out to have held the Insurance Company i.e., respondent insurance is also liable for compensation. (iii) That after remarriage respondent widow was not entitled to claim compensation because she no longer remained a dependent. In order to appreciate the argument, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant parts of Section 3 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. 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. Provided that the employer shall not be so liable: (a) In respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the employee for a period exceeding three days; (b) In respect of any injury not resulting in death, caused by an accident which is directly attributable to: (i) The employee having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs or (ii) The willful disobedience of the employee to an order expressly given or to rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of employee, or (iii) The willful removal or disregard by the employee of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of employee. On the basis of the above facts, answer the following: Whether the employer can take plea of 'added peril' in his defense?