Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 23.11.2004 made in W.C.No.112 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II, Chennai-6 (before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai-6). 2. The respondents 1 to 4 filed W.C.No.112 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II, Chennai-6 (before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai-6) claiming compensation for the death of one Soundararajan in an alleged accident which occurred on 5.10.2003 during the course of his employment under the fifth respondent herein. 3. According to the respondents 1 to 4/claimants, the deceased, Soundarajan, was a lorry driver earning Rs.5000/- per month and he was driving lorry bearing registration No.TN-05-C-9559. During the course of his employment when he was driving the lorry from Mangalore to Madras, via Udipi, near Penambur beach cross road, he parked the vehicle and when he was crossing the road to have his supper at about 8.30 p.m., he was hit by another vehicle bearing registration No.KA-19-A-7117 and died on the way to the hospital. The respondents 1 to 4/claimants accordingly filed claim petition seeking compensation. 4. The appellant/Insurance Company filed detailed counter alleging that the deceased was not at all employed as a driver by the fifth respondent on the date of the accident and therefore, the death of the deceased was not during the course of his employment under the fifth respondent. The appellant/Insurance Company also denied the age of the deceased and his monthly salary. 5. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, weighing the evidence let in by both sides, concluded that the deceased died during the course of his employment as a driver in the lorry and granted a sum of Rs.3,39,800/- as compensation with interest from the date of accident. Hence, this appeal by the appellant/Insurance Company. 6. The core contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was on leave on the date of accident and therefore, it cannot be said that the accident has taken place during the course of the employment. 7. We heard the learned counsel at length and have also perused the records available on record. 8. The word "accident" has not been defined under the Workmen's Compensation Act. But, the definition given to this word by Lord Macnaghten in the case of Fenton Vs. Thorley and Co. 7. We heard the learned counsel at length and have also perused the records available on record. 8. The word "accident" has not been defined under the Workmen's Compensation Act. But, the definition given to this word by Lord Macnaghten in the case of Fenton Vs. Thorley and Co. Ltd., (1903 AC 443) has been accepted as a most appropriate meaning of the word. He has defined accident "as denoting an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed." The connection between the accident and the employment may be established if the strain had contributed to or accelerated or hastened the accident. It may not be possible at all times to produce direct evidence of the connection between the employment and the injury, but if the probabilities are more in favour of the applicant then the Commissioner is justified in inferring that the accident did in fact arise out of and in the course of the employment. 9. In the Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Private Ltd., Vs. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak (1970 I LLJ 16 = 1970 Lab I.C. 1413 (Vol.3, C.N.313)) the Supreme Court held as under: "To come within the Act, there must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment. The expression 'arising out of employment' is again not confined to the mere nature of the employment. The expression applies to employment as such to its nature, to its conditions, its obligation and its incidents. If by reason of any of those factors the workman is brought within the zone of special danger, the injury would be one which arises 'out of employment'. To put it differently, 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." 10. In the instant case, a perusal of the documentary evidence available on record, which is not disputed, reveals the following facts, namely: (i) the deceased was working as a lorry driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-05-C-9559 belonging to the fifth respondent, which is insured with the appellant/insurance company; and (ii) the lorry insured was found to be present near Penambur beach cross road, transporting the goods from Mangalore to Chennai via, Udipi. 11. 11. There can be no dispute that the deceased died in the course of the employment since there was no occasion for him to be at the Penambur beach cross road, transporting the goods from Mangalore to Chennai via, Udipi, unless he had been driving the lorry. 12. In view of the above undisputed facts available on record, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company that the deceased was on leave on the fateful day and therefore, the accident has not taken place during the course of the employment fails. The appeal fails and is therefore dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.6486 of 2005 is closed.