S.K. MAL LODHA, J—By this appeal under section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act (No.VIII of 1923) (for short the Act hereafter), the appell-ants have assailed the order dated November 21, 1979 of the Workmens Compensation Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner Bikaner, Churu and Nagaur, by which, he awarded a sum of Rs. 19,200/- as compensation and Rs. 100/- as expenses to the respondent, who is father of the deceased Multanaram. 2. A few facts leading to this appeal may briefly be stated. The respondent Heeraram, father of deceased Multanaram filed an application dated January 16, 1978 before the Commissioner for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 19,200/- with costs to him from appellants No.l and 2. It was stated that deceased Multanaram was employed as a Workman by appellants No. 1 and 2 on February 12, 1977 as pipe fitter. It was alleged that on March 12, 1977, the deceased Multanaram was going on duty in Jeep No. RJK 5398 with Junior Engineers Sarva Shri Dwarka Dass Vyas, D.K. Joshi and Vinod Kumar Mathur from R. D. 900. A trouble arose in the Jeep and it became out of order at R.D. 888. It was made in order As the Jeep was not being driven satisfactorily Shri D.K. Joshi ordered to return to the headquarters at R.D. 900. It again went out of order at R.D. 895. The driver Amarsingh and the fitter Multanaram got out of the Jeep and attempted to check it and to remove the defects. The deceased Multanaram is said to have put his hand on the carburettor to start the engine. When he was doing so, there was a mis-fire with the result that the clothes of Multanaram caught fire and started burning. Despite the efforts being made to set out the fire, Multanaram was partially burnt. He was removed to the head-quarters at R.D. 900 and was given first aid. Subsequently on March 15, 1977, he was removed to the hospital. There he was reported to be dead. After his post-mortem on March 16, 1977, his dead body was taken to village Bhundana by his nearest relative J.E.N. Shri Sitaram and it was handed over to respondent Heeraram, father of the deceased Multanaram. Subsequently on March 15, 1977, he was removed to the hospital. There he was reported to be dead. After his post-mortem on March 16, 1977, his dead body was taken to village Bhundana by his nearest relative J.E.N. Shri Sitaram and it was handed over to respondent Heeraram, father of the deceased Multanaram. In the application, it was stated that respondent, Heeraram, father of the deceased Multanaram, his mother and old grand mother were wholly dependent Upon Multanaram, and that the deceased Multanaram was unmarried, that at the time of the accident he was 22 years old and that he was getting Rs. 330/- as monthly wages. An application was submitted to the appellants No. 1 and 2 for grant of compensation but neither any reply was received nor any compensation was paid to the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed the application for grant of compensation as aforesaid. 3. The application was contested by appellants No. 1 and 2. It was admitted that the deceased Multanaram was employed on the post of a fitter and that he expired on March 15, 1977. The work which Multanaram was required to do was to do pipe fitting and not to repair the jeep. It was stated that neither appellants No. 1 and 2 nor JEN Ranjeetsingh nor D.P. Joshi ordered him to repair the jeep, as it was not his duties. It was mentioned that it was not expected from him to do the repair of the jeep. It was admitted that the accident had taken place in the course of employment but it was denied that it has arisen out of the employment. It was also contended that the wages of the deceased Multanaram of the full month in accordance with the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act were only Rs. 286/- and therefore, the amount of compensation claimed on the basis of the allegation that his monthly wages were Rs. 330/-cannot be awarded. The Commissioner framed six issues on March 28, 1978. It was also contended that the wages of the deceased Multanaram of the full month in accordance with the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act were only Rs. 286/- and therefore, the amount of compensation claimed on the basis of the allegation that his monthly wages were Rs. 330/-cannot be awarded. The Commissioner framed six issues on March 28, 1978. The evidence was recorded and the Commissioner recorded the following findings :— (1) that the deceased Multanaram was a workman ; (2) that Multanaram died on account of the accident, which has arisen out of and in the course of his employment ; (3) that the respondent is entitled to compensation in accordance with his claim ; (4) that the Assistant Engineer, (appellant No. 2) is liable to pay compensation ; (5) that the monthly wages of the deceased Multanaram were between Rs. 300/-to Rs. 400/-; and (6) that the respondent is entitled to Rs. 19, 200/- as compensation and Rs. 100/- as costs of the application. In view of the findings aforesaid, the application of the respondent for the award of the compensation was allowed by the Commissioner vide his order dated November 21, 1979. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have come up in appeal under section 30 of the Act to this Court. 4. I have heard Mr. N.M. Lodha, learnd Deputy Government Advocate and Mr. B.N. Calla, learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record. 5. It was strenuously contended by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the injuries on the body of deceased Multanaram which have ultimately resulted in his death did not arise out of the employment and, therefore, the award of compensation by the Commissioner was illegal. In other words, the learned Deputy Government Advocate has challenged finding No. 2 mentioned hereinabove of the learned Commissioner to the extent that Multanaram has died on account of the accident which has arisen out of the employment. It was not disputed that the injuries which were caused to Multanaram by accident were in the course of his employment. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the injuries which were caused by accident to Multanaram arose out of and in the course of his employment. In these circumstances, the substantial question of law that emerges for my consideration is whether the accident arose out of the employment. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the injuries which were caused by accident to Multanaram arose out of and in the course of his employment. In these circumstances, the substantial question of law that emerges for my consideration is whether the accident arose out of the employment. 6. It will be useful to notice the relevant evidence in this reeard Shri D.K. Joshi, JEN RCP has stated that the driver and the deceased Multana Ram began to repair the Jeep and the driver asked the deceased Multana Ram to do pumping an carburettor and for that he placed his hand and while doing so there was mis-fire and his clothes caught fire. Shri V.C. Mathur has deposed — ^^-----------bl ij Mªkboj Jh vej flag us eqYrkukjke dks psfdax djus ds fy;s dgkA mlds psfdax djus ds nkSjku mis-fire ls thi esa vkx yx xbZ ftlls eqYrkukjke ds diM+ksa esa Hkh vkx yx xbZ---------------** Shri Sita Ram JEN, RCP has stated amongst others as follows : ^^------------rc Mªªkboj us dgk fd eSa xkM+h LVkVZ djrk gwW vkSj eqYrkukjke dks dgk fd rqe dkjcksjsVj ij gkFk j[kks vkSj psfdax djks rc eqyrkukjke us dkjcksjsVj ij gkFk j[kk vkSj FkksM+h nsj esa vkx yx xbZ ftlls mlds gkFkksa esa dksguh ds ikl vkSj vkW[kksa ds ikl dkQh ty x;k Fkk-----** 7. Ratna Ram has supported Shri V.C. Mathur and Shri Sita Ram In this state of evidence it is to be examined whether the injuries which resulted in death were caused by the accident which arose out of employment. 8. The relevant portion of section 3 of the Act is as under :— "Employers liability for Compensation. Ratna Ram has supported Shri V.C. Mathur and Shri Sita Ram In this state of evidence it is to be examined whether the injuries which resulted in death were caused by the accident which arose out of employment. 8. The relevant portion of section 3 of the Act is as under :— "Employers liability for Compensation. (1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employ ment his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: 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 workman 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 workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the wilful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or (iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen; " Section 3(1) of the Act requires (i) that a personal injury must be caused to workman; (ii) that the injury must have been caused by accident; and (iii) that the accident must have arisen out of and in the course of his employment. 9. The third element of the section "arising out of and in the course of employment has been taken from the English Act of 1897. 10. V. Ramaswami, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Court in M Mackenzie V.I.M. Issak (1) observed as follows: "To come within the Act the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment. 10. V. Ramaswami, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Court in M Mackenzie V.I.M. Issak (1) observed as follows: "To come within the Act the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment. The words "in the course of the employment" mean "in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it." The words "arising out of employment" are understood to mean that "during the course of employment injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service which unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered". There must be a causal 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 an added peril by his own imprudent act." In that case, the test laid down in Lancashire and Yorkshire Rly. Co V. Highley (2) by Lord Sumner for determining whether an accident arose out of the employment was noticed. In Lancashire and Yorkshire Rly Co.s case (2), Lord Sumner has stated as under:— "There is, however, in my opinion, one test which is always at any rate applicable, because it arises upon the very words of the Statute, and it is generally of some real assistance. It is this: Was it part of the injured persons employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do that which caused his injury ? If yes, the accident arose out of his employment. If say, it did not because, what it was not part of the employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do, cannot well be the cause of an accident arising out the employment. If yes, the accident arose out of his employment. If say, it did not because, what it was not part of the employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do, cannot well be the cause of an accident arising out the employment. To ask if the cause of this was within the sphere of the employment or was one of the ordinary risks of the employment, or reasonably incidental to the employment, or conversely, was an added peril and outside the sphere of the employment, are all different ways of asking whether it was a part of his employment, that the workman should have acted as he was acting, or should have been in the position in which he was, whereby in the course of that employment he sustained injury." (Italic Supplied.) It is clear from M. Mackenzies case (1) that arising out of the employment is not limited to the mere nature of the employment, but it ("arising out of employment") applies to its nature, its conditions, its obligations & its incidents. An accident which had occurred on account of a risk, which is an incident of employment, then the claim for compensation can succeed provided the workman has not exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act. To find whether the death was caused by added peril, the relevant enquiry to make is whether the thing was within the sphere of employment and incidental to it. Whether it was in the interest of the work of the employer, and was simply done carelessly and negligently. If the answer to the above is in affirmative, then the accident would be said to be out of and in the course of employment and the plea of added peril will not be given effect. On the contrary if the answer is in the negative and it is found that the thing was beyond the scope of employment i. e., something to which the workmen volunterily imposed himself not regarding the business of the employer but about his own business, then it cannot be said to be out of employment and it would be a case of added peril. Reference in this connection may be made to R.B. Moondra & Co. vs. Mst. Bhan-wari (3). Reference in this connection may be made to R.B. Moondra & Co. vs. Mst. Bhan-wari (3). In Ajaiah vs. Lakshmaiah (4), it was held that in determining whether an accident had arisen out of and in the course of persons employment, it is enough if it is established —(1) that at the time of the accident he was in fact employed on the duties of his employment; (2) that it occurred at the place where he was performing those duties; and (3) that the immediate act which led to the accident is not so remote from the sphere of his duties as to be regarded as something foreign to them. 11. The same Judge, in R. Kotayya V.D. Nagavaradhanamma (5) reiterat-ed the above tests and laid down the following proportions for excluding the liability of the employer: "(1) Where the accident involved a risk common to all humanity, and did not involve any peculiar or exceptional danger resulting from the nature of the employment, or (2) Where the accident was the result of an added peril, to which the workman by his own conduct exposed himself, which peril was not involved in the normal performance of the duties of his employment." 12. A Division Bench of the Assam High Court in Assam Rlys. & Trading Co. vs. Saraswati Devi (6) has considered the aforesaid two decisions alongwith others and afformed the tests laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 13. Applying the tests laid down in M.Mackenzies case(l) the above mentioned decisions, it cannot be said that the injuries caused to deceased Multana-ram by accident arose out of the employment. The injuries which were caused which resulted in the death of Multanaram cannot be said to have any connection with the nature of the duties which he was entrusted with. The connection is not even incidental to the work for which he was employed. There was no causal relationship between the accident and the employment. His duty was that of fitting the pipes. On March 12, 1977, he was required to at R.D. 900 for the identification of the pump which was said to have been stolen. It was not the part of his duties or employment to repair or to keep hand on the carburettor at the time of the repair of the jeep which is said to have gone out of the order. It was not the part of his duties or employment to repair or to keep hand on the carburettor at the time of the repair of the jeep which is said to have gone out of the order. He put his hand on the carburettor on being asked by the driver. It was not part of his employment to hazard, to suffer or to do. The cause of accident was not out of the sphere of the employment. 14. The Commissioner in the impugned order has referred to Janki Ammal vs. Divl. Engr. Highways (7). In that case, it was pointed out that the injury must not only arise, "in the course of but also out of employment." Proof of the one without the other wilt not bring the case within the Act. In that case, the learned Judge has stated as under: — "In Thorn vs. Sinclair- it was pointed out that the injury must not only arise "in the course of" but also "out of" the employment. Proof of the one without the other will not bring a case within the Act. While an accident arising out of an employment almost necessarily occurs in the course of it, the converse does not follow. An injury* which occurs in the course of the employment will ordinarily arise out of the employment. But not necessarily so. The expression applies to the employment as such to its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents. It must appear that there is some causative connection between the injury and something peculiar to the employment. The nature of the occupation may sometimes supply causative relation. But it is only as to some employments that this is so. The Court is directed to look at what has happened proximately, and not to search for causes or conditions lying behind as would be the case if negligence on the part of the employer had to be established." 15. On the facts of that case, the learned Judge of the Madras High Court observed as under:— "In the present case that the personal injury resulting from the accident arose out of and in the course of the deceased workmans employment under this contractor has been established as it has been held in Vardarajulu vs. Masya Boyan (1955) 2 M.L. J. 590: I.L.R. (1955) Mad. 798 (C.J. and Umamaheswaram, J.) that a workman will be acting in the course of his employment when he travels in a conveyance provided by his employer." 16. In the Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. Srimathi Yamunabai (8) it was observed as under:— "The expression arising out of his employment suggests both the time as well as the place of employment. The expression out of conveys the idea that there must be some sort of connection between the employment and the injury caused to a workman as a result of the accident. That, to my mind, is the literal and strict construction of the section. But in my opinion, the words arising out of his employment are wide enough so as to cover a case, where there may not necessarily be a direct connection between the injury caused as a result of an accident and the employment of the workman. And there may be circumstances... .....which would go to show that the workman received personal injury as a result of the accident arising out of his employment." The learned Judge pointed out that the observations in Lancashire and Yorkshires case (2) are not strictly applicable to all cases. It may be mentioned that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M.Mackenzis case(l)have clearly stated after referring to Lancashire & Yorkshire Rly. Co.s case (2) that if the accident had occurred on account of the risk, which is an incident of the employment, the claim for compensation should be allowed. In the present case, having regard to the employment of the deceased Multanaram it cannot be said that the accident bad occurred on account of the risk which was an incident of his employment. Under section 3(1) of the Act, the appellants cannot be held to be liable. 17. In view of the above discussion, the substantial question of law viz., whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the injuries caused to deceased Multanaram by accident arose out of the employment is answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondent. It is held that the injuries caused to the deceased Multanaram by accident cannot be said to have arisen out of the employment. The finding of the Commissioner is, therefore, reversed. 18. Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate has also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the appellants. It is held that the injuries caused to the deceased Multanaram by accident cannot be said to have arisen out of the employment. The finding of the Commissioner is, therefore, reversed. 18. Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate has also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the appellants. Section 4 of the Act provides for amount of compensation to be awarded. Clause (a) of section 4(1) deals with compensation payable in case of death, and it is fixed on the basis of monthly wages earned by the workman. Section 5 deals with the method of calculation of wages. In the case in hand, the Commissioner has stated that between February 11, 1977 to March 12, 1977 the deceased Multanaram had worked for 29 days and he was paid Rs. 319 according to muster roll. This is not disputed by the learned Deputy Government Advocate. This shows that the amount of monthly wages earned by the workman for the award of compensation under section 4 were Rs. 319/-. According to Schedule IV when the monthly wages are more than Rs. 300/- and not more than Rs. 400/- then in case of death amount of compensation to be awarded is Rs. 19.200/-. The Commissioner was, therefore, right in determining the amount of Rs. 19,200/- as compensation. 19. However, in view of the finding that the injuries caused by accident to the deceased Multana Ram cannot be said to have arisen out of the employ- * ment, the respondent is not entitled to any compensation. 20. No other point was argued by any of the learned counsel for the parties. 21. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order awarding compensation dated November 21, 1979 to the respondent is not sustainable. 22. For the reasons mentioned above, I am constrained to allow this appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner dated November 21, 1979 passed in Workmens Compensation Case No 8 of 1978 awarding compensation to the respondent. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs of this appeal.