CompensationArising out of employmentSupreme Court of India

Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v Ibrahim Mahommed Issak

AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1906; (1970) 1 SCR 869; (1969) 2 SCC 60719702 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Shaikh Hassan Ibrahim was employed as a deck-hand (seaman, category II) on the ship SS Dwarka, of which the appellant was the agent. He was found missing on board. A claim was filed under S.3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for his death.
Issue
Whether, without evidence of how the seaman was lost, his death could be held to be caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.
Held
To come within the Act, the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment.
Principle
Compensation needs an injury by accident arising both out of and in the course of employment. The claimant must prove this; it may be proved by inference from proved facts, but not by conjecture.
Cite this

Facts

  • Shaikh Hassan Ibrahim was employed as a deck-hand (seaman, category II) on the ship SS Dwarka, of which the appellant was the agent.
  • He was found missing on board. A claim was filed under S.3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for his death.
  • The Additional Commissioner held there was no evidence that the seaman was dead, and in any event no evidence that his death was caused by an accident arising out of employment.
  • The Bombay High Court reversed the Commissioner. The employer appealed.

Issue

  1. Whether, without evidence of how the seaman was lost, his death could be held to be caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Held

  • To come within the Act, the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment.
  • "In the course of employment" means in the course of the work the workman is employed to do and what is incidental to it. "Arising out of employment" requires a causal connection between the employment and the accident.
  • The burden of proving both is on the claimant. It may be discharged by inference from proved facts, but not by conjecture or speculation.
  • The Commissioner made no error of law, and the High Court was not justified in reversing him. The appeal was allowed and the claim failed.

Ratio decidendi

The claimant must prove an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Legitimate inference from proved facts can discharge that burden; conjecture cannot.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Leading authority on the two limbs "arising out of" and "in the course of" employment, and on the claimant's burden.
  • Use where the facts of the accident are unknown: the claim succeeds only if the proved facts support an inference, not a guess.
  • Key line: "In Mackinnon Mackenzie v. Ibrahim Mahommed Issak (1970), the Supreme Court held that the claimant must prove both limbs, and may rely on inference from proved facts but not on conjecture."

Cite this

Citation

Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahommed Issak AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1906; (1970) 1 SCR 869; (1969) 2 SCC 607

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/945489/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.