Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Admittedly, the truck bearing registration No. BR-14G 0589 belonged to M/s Randev Associates Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) whereon Karma Lohar, the deceased husband of Most. Somari Devi of village Hootap, District Ranchi was employed as Helper. On July 5, 1995 at about 9.30 P.M. the said vehicle was said to have been hijacked by the miscreants/ ami social elements and the said helper was killed by them. The vehicle was insured with M/s. United India Insurance Company at the relevant time. 2. Most. Somari Devi filed a claim petition under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was registered as CWC 17/96 before the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, Hazaribagh.The Company which was the owner of the vehicle was made opposite party No. 1 whereas Insurance Company was made as opposite party No. 2. 3. According to the claimant, the deceased helper was 19 years old and was getting pay of Rs. 2100.00 per month. The Director of the Company admitted that the deceased was employed as Khalasi and he was done to death along with the driver of the said vehicle by the miscreants/ anti-social elements and the vehicle was, at the relevant time, insured with M/s United India Insurance Company Limited. The Insurance Company challenged the fact that the deceased was employed as helper on the vehicle in question and his pay was Rs. 2100.00 per month. As per post mortem report, the deceased was found 13 years old and thus, he being the minor could not be employed and was not entitled to any workmans compensation amount. 4. In the impugned order dated January 10, 1997, the learned Commissioner under the Act found that the deceased, on the basis of the materials on record, was 19 years old at the time of his death and according to the certificate of the employer-company, he was getting a pay of Rs. 2100.00 per month. However, the parties agreed in course of the trial that the deceased was 19 years old and was receiving Rs. 1500.00 per month towards his pay. 5. The learned Commissioner was pleased to award Rs. 2100.00 per month. However, the parties agreed in course of the trial that the deceased was 19 years old and was receiving Rs. 1500.00 per month towards his pay. 5. The learned Commissioner was pleased to award Rs. 1, 35, 132.00 as the amount of compensation since the concerned vehicle was found insured, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the same within 30 days of the order for being paid to the dependents of the deceased. 6. The only point to be considered in this appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation amount. 7. According to the appellant -Insurance Company, the deceased neither met with accident nor died during course of employment, rather it was out and out a criminal case and due to action of the criminals, he lost his life. 8. In the light of the admitted fact that the deceased was engaged as the helper by the Company and that he was killed while he was performing his duty as helper on the vehicle in question, there cannot be any justification in law to contend that the accident had not occurred in course of his employment. 9. An incident which is unforeseen is an accident. What the Act intends to convey is a right of a workman expressed in an accidental injury. The terms "accident" means some unexpected and unforeseen event or overlooked mischief. 10. The authorities have laid down that there must be a causal connection between the accident and the employment in order that the Court can say that the accident arose out of the employment of deceased. The employee in course of his employment must be in particular place and by reason of his being in that particular place he was to face peril and the accident was caused by reason of that peril, which he had to face, then a causal connection is established between accident and the employment. However, the peril which the deceased faced must not be something personal to him and it must be incidental to his employment. He must not by his own act add to the peril or extend, the peril. The said peril which the deceased employee faced has nothing to do with his own action or his own conduct. 11. However, the peril which the deceased faced must not be something personal to him and it must be incidental to his employment. He must not by his own act add to the peril or extend, the peril. The said peril which the deceased employee faced has nothing to do with his own action or his own conduct. 11. Except under Sec. 14 of the Act, there was no other provision for any liability of the Insurance Company. A contract of insurance in respect of the liability of the workman under the Act is must and only then after the insured became insolvent, a right of the insured against the insurer would vest in the workman. 12. It is well settled that a policy of insurance is entered into so that the insured may be indemnified by the insurer in the event he becomes liable to pay compensation in respect of the matters covered under the insurance policy and for which certificate of the insurance has been obtained by him. Under the scheme of the Act, it was evident that the rights and liabilities of both the insurer and the insured were statutory ones, in view of the statutory liability imposed upon the insurer by reason of the provisions engrafted under the Act. In my opinion, the in-surer cannot escape from such liability only because a claim has been tiled under the Compensation Act and not under the Motor Vehicles Act. 13. Mr. S.N. Lal, counsel appearing on be- half of the respondent No. 2, the Director of the Company laid stress on the contract under the insurance policy whereby under I.M.T. 17, the liability of the insured in respect of a person employed in connection with the operation and/ or loading, unloading of motor vehicle was also covered and the insurer was liable to indemnity the same. 14. In my opinion, the said clause is not relevant for the present purpose. No contract en-tered into by the employer company and the insurer in respect of the liability of the workmen embodied in insurance policy was brought to my notice. 15. In view of my above discussions. I hold that the compensation against death of Karma Lohar as fixed in the impugned order be borne by only the Company i.e. the respondent No. 2 under the Act and the appellant Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the same. 16. 15. In view of my above discussions. I hold that the compensation against death of Karma Lohar as fixed in the impugned order be borne by only the Company i.e. the respondent No. 2 under the Act and the appellant Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the same. 16. The impugned order dated Januar 10.1997 is, therefore, set aside and modifier only to the extent that instead of the Insurant Company, the respondent No. 1. the widow (sic) the deceased is entitled to realise the entire com peasation amount of Rs. 1.35, 132.00 as awarded by the Commissioner under the Act from the owner of the truck, namely, the respondent No 2. 17. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.