SHAMBHOO SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed under section 30 of the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the act') by the insurance company against the order dated 13. 11. 1998 passed by the workmen's Compensation Commissioner, indore, in Fatal Case No. 71 of 1999. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that Rajaram, the husband of respondent-applicant was employed as a driver by respondent/non-applicant Chironjilal on his truck No. MPF 6548 which was insured with the appellant. On 22. 6. 91 rajaram along with labourers and cleaner, had taken this truck to Pitipura for bringing woods. But it was raining, therefore, the deceased returned from the jungle and came to Bhoti-Bhawadi and parked the truck there. There one Veersingh was hurling abuses. The deceased Rajaram asked him not to utter abuses, on this Veersingh gave himfaliya blow, as a result of which he sustained injuries and died. The L. Rs. of the deceased his widow and sons filed application under section 10 of the Act for grant of compensation as the deceased died due to accident which arose out of and in the course of employment against respondent No. 1 employer and appellant insurance company. The respondent No. 1 remained absent. He was proceeded ex parte. Appellant resisted the claim. The commissioner on appreciation of evidence, awarded compensation of Rs. 2,07,980. The insurance company being aggrieved of this order has come up in appeal. ( 3 ) MR. Dandwate, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that at the time of incident, the deceased Rajaram was not discharging his duty as driver. His act of asking Veersingh not to abuse led causing of injury to him. Therefore, this accident had no connection with his employment, and the learned Commissioner committed an error in granting compensation to the respondent. On the other hand, Mr. O. P. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents, supported the impugned judgment. ( 4 ) WE considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides and perused the record. The question is whether the injury due to which respondent died, was caused during the course of employment? from the F. I. R. Exh. P-i, lodged by Rama who was present at the time of incident and the judgment Exh. P-l dated 29. 11. The question is whether the injury due to which respondent died, was caused during the course of employment? from the F. I. R. Exh. P-i, lodged by Rama who was present at the time of incident and the judgment Exh. P-l dated 29. 11. 95 passed in S. T. No. 392 of 1991, wherein Veersingh was prosecuted on the charge of having committed murder of rajaram, specifically para 6, it appears that the deceased Rajaram had parked the truck at Bhoti-Bhawadi and the accused veersingh was giving abuses to Rajaram and villagers. Rajaram told him not to abuse. The accused caused injury to Rajaram as a result of which he died. Admittedly, the deceased Rajaram had driven the truck of his employer Chironjilal to Pitipura for bringing woods but due to rains, he had to come back. He had parked it near Bhoti-Bhawadi where this incident took place. It is, therefore, clear that at the time of incident the deceased was in the employment of the truck owner Chironjilal and was discharging his duty. Thus, the accident arose out of employment. The argument that when the deceased asked veersingh not to hurl abuses, he was not in the employment and was not discharging his duties as employee of respondent no. 1, is without substance. Mr. Dubey submitted that the accused hurled abuses due to the parking of the truck there. The deceased and the accused were unknown to each other. The incident took place unexpectedly. By parking the truck at the bhoti-Bhawadi, it cannot be said that the deceased produced peril and by asking veersingh not to hurl abuses extended the peril. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the accident had no origin and there was no causal connection between the accident and the employment. The learned Commissioner in view of above, held that the accident aroseout of and during the course of employment of the deceased and we find no reason to disagree with the above finding. The decision of apex Court in case of Employees State insurance Corporation v. Francis De costa, 1996 ACJ 1281 (SC), does not help mr. Dandwate. In this case, the deceased met with an accident one km. away from the factory when he was going to join his duty. The decision of apex Court in case of Employees State insurance Corporation v. Francis De costa, 1996 ACJ 1281 (SC), does not help mr. Dandwate. In this case, the deceased met with an accident one km. away from the factory when he was going to join his duty. Under such situation, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. Mr. Dubey put reliance on the decision of this court in case of Babulal mulchand (Firm) v. AH Mohd. Rajjab, 1962 MPLJ 454, wherein the workman driver was attacked by the dacoits and the decision of Kerala High Court in case of varkeyachan v. Thomman, 1979 ACJ 319 (Kerala), where the workman was stabbed while discharging his duties, it was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The facts of the case on hand are similar to these cases. In this case, the deceased was discharging his duties when he was parking the truck and was murdered during discharge of his duties. ( 5 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .