JUDGMENT By Court.-Admittedly. Mallu Rana alias Malhu Rana was employed as driver on a truck, bearing registration no KA09M-3762, which was owned by Ratan Lal. While the said driver was on duty on the said truck on 16.11.1999, he was murdered and his dead body was recovered from the back portion of the truck. He was 38 years' old and as assessed by the Compensation Commissioner, his monthly earning was Rs. 1732.12. 2. In the claim application, the respondents 1 to 5, who were the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased driver, did not dispute the manner in which Mallu Rana was found killed. 3. The Insurance Company before the Workmen's Commissioner contended that on the basis of statement of the Chowkidar, an First Information Report was lodged in respect of the occurrence in question, wherein Mallu Rana was found murdered. 4. One Rakesh Kumar Mahto was employed as Khalasi on the truck. He had some personal grudge against the deceased driver, who had committed unnatural offence with him. The said Khalasi in order to take revenge killed him. 5. In our opinion, the most relevant question for the purpose of deciding a claim case under the Workmen's Compensation Act was to find out whether the death of the truck driver had any causal connection with the nature of his employment. It is true that his murder took place, while he was on duty on the said truck, but his murder was committed by his Khalasi on the truck, who had a personal grudge against him. Hence, in our opinion, the cause of his murder had no causal connection with the nature of his employment/duty. 6. It is not a case, where driver of the truck was killed by some miscreants, while he was on his duty on the said truck. 7. Hence, in our opinion, the owner of the truck was not liable to pay any compensation under the Act and consequently there was no occasion for the insurer to indemnify the owner's liability to pay compensation under the Act to those claimants. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of the Act were not attracted and W.C. Case No. 20 of 2000 was not maintainable. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and award. 9. In the result, this Appeal is allowed and the W.C.Case No. 20 of 2000 is dismissed. No costs.