<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1969 (8) TMI 90 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200785</link>
    <description>Compensation under section 3 of the Workmen&#039;s Compensation Act, 1923 is payable only when personal injury by accident both arises out of and occurs in the course of employment, and the claimant bears the burden of proving those elements. The requirements may be inferred from proved facts in an unexplained accident case, but only where the worker is shown to have been exposed to a risk ordinarily incident to the duties and the accident is capable of explanation by that risk. On the facts described, the seaman was last seen on the vessel, yet there was no evidence of how he disappeared or of any work-related risk causing the death, so the inference was not justified and compensation failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2018 15:52:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517739" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (8) TMI 90 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200785</link>
      <description>Compensation under section 3 of the Workmen&#039;s Compensation Act, 1923 is payable only when personal injury by accident both arises out of and occurs in the course of employment, and the claimant bears the burden of proving those elements. The requirements may be inferred from proved facts in an unexplained accident case, but only where the worker is shown to have been exposed to a risk ordinarily incident to the duties and the accident is capable of explanation by that risk. On the facts described, the seaman was last seen on the vessel, yet there was no evidence of how he disappeared or of any work-related risk causing the death, so the inference was not justified and compensation failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200785</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>