JUDGMENT 1. Both the appeals pertain to different incidents. But common question of facts and law involved. Hence, both the appeals are heard together for common disposal. 2. One Manjunath is the deceased in M.V.C. No. 2500 of 2001. The deceased is an inmate of the BMTC bus. One Nadeem, Suban, Islam and Hydar attempted to pick the pocket of the deceased, as a result altercation took place. The deceased was beaten to death. The police have registered a case against Nadeem and others for causing the murder in Cr. No. 218 of 1995 on the file of Sampangiramanagar Police Station. 3. The deceased Maruthi in M.V.C. No. 419 of 1999 is travelling on the top of the North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation bus. Respondents 4 to 9 in M.V.C. No. 419 of 1999 had grouse against the deceased for personal reasons. In the altercation respondents 4 to 9 pushed down the deceased from the moving bus as a result Maruthi died. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the legal representatives of both the deceased. In view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Smt. Rita Devi and Others v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another1, BMTC and NEKRTC are in appeal seeking avoidance of liability. . 4. The facts in Rita Devi's case disclose the one 'X' is the driver of a public service auto. Some passengers get into the auto with a pretence of bona fide travel. In the course of the journey, it reveals that the passengers board the auto with an intention of rob the auto. The driver resisted their attempt and he was killed. The Supreme Court refers to the decision in Challis u London and South-Western Railway Company2, and comes to the conclusion that the incident of murder has taken place in the course of employment and out of employment, essentially for the reason that the robberies and dacoities are the incidental hazards attending duty of a driver. The intention of robbers was to rob the auto and the entire incident happens in the use of the auto. The Supreme Court in the context of facts comes to the conclusion that the incident has taken place in the course of and out of the employment and in the use of the vehicle. Thus, holds the owner and the insurer is liable to pay compensation. 5. The Supreme Court in the context of facts comes to the conclusion that the incident has taken place in the course of and out of the employment and in the use of the vehicle. Thus, holds the owner and the insurer is liable to pay compensation. 5. On careful and thorough scrutiny, the facts on hand are totally distant from the facts available in Rita Devi's case. The facts of Rita Devi's case attracted the liability of the owner and insurer as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The necessary requisites of "in the course of and out of the employment" and in the use of the vehicle are evident in the facts of Rita Devi's case. In the instant case, there IS no foreseeable liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The use of the vehicle is neither a direct nor a contributory cause for the mishap. Therefore, the NEKRTC and BMTC does not incur any liability. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.