JUDGMENT One Anil Kumar the deceased was employed as an at tender under the 1st respondent (Private Medical Practitioner). On 13-10-1995 the 1st respondent (employer) directed the deceased workman at about 11.30 p.m. in the night to carry the drug load on the motor cycle from the clinic to his residence. The deceased while driving the motor cycle met with an accident an.1 died. Second and third respondents herein who are the legal heirs of the deceased made a claim before the Workmens' Compensation Commissioner seeking compensation. The Workmens' Compensation Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,13,570/-. The insurer of the motor cycle is directed to pay the compensation, hence the insurer is in appeal. 2. Substantial question of law that arises for our consideration in this appeal are as follows.- a. Whether the entrustment of motor cycle by the 1st respondent to the deceased workman for the purpose of his clinic work is within the expression of "engaged in driving of the vehicle" as per the proviso to Section 147(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? b. Based on the above facts whether the Workmens' Compensation Commissioner is justified in holding that the accident occurred in the course of and out of employment? c. When the claimants say that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 1,800/- per month, whether the Workmens' Compensation Commissioner is justified in assessing the wages at Rs. 2,000/- per month? 3. Sri A.M. Venkatesh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant (insurer) strenuously argued that the deceased was basically employed as an at tender and not as a driver. The expression 'engaged in driving of the vehicle' would apply only to four-wheelers and not to two-wheelers. It is argued that assuming that the deceased was casually employed to drive the motor cycle cannot be deemed to be a driver and the entrustment of driving of the vehicle would be in the nature of casual employment, therefore, would not be a workman within the definition of Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. On the above grounds it is argued that the W.C. Commissioner was not justified in holding that the deceased was a workman and that accident occurred in the course of and out of employment. 4. On the above grounds it is argued that the W.C. Commissioner was not justified in holding that the deceased was a workman and that accident occurred in the course of and out of employment. 4. The relevant portion of the proviso to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is extracted herein for convenient reference: "Provided that a policy shall not be required.- (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee.- (a) engaged in driving the vehicle; or (b) if it is a public service vehicle, engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle; or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle; or (ii) to cover any contractual liability". 5. In the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the motor vehicle is broadly defined to include four-wheelers. Two-wheelers, transport vehicles, non-transport vehicles, light vehicles etc., as a motor vehicle. The definition of a motor vehicle does not make any distinction between the two-wheelers and four-wheelers. Therefore, it is impermissible to argue that the expression "engaged in driving of the vehicle" should be construed only to mean entrustment of four-wheelers for driving. 6. The duties of an at tender would be varied and it is natural that the deceased had to attend to all the directions of his employer. The direction to drive the vehicle may not be a regular part of his duty but it should be construed as a casual employment for the purpose of business and trade of the employer. In that view the deceased is a workman within the definition of Section 2(1)(n) of the W.C. Act. The ratio in the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited v Ramu Pasi and Another), fully applies to the facts of the present case. The policy issued covers the risk of a driver 'engaged in driving'. Therefore, the insurer is very much liable to pay the compensation. 7. The ratio in the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited v Ramu Pasi and Another), fully applies to the facts of the present case. The policy issued covers the risk of a driver 'engaged in driving'. Therefore, the insurer is very much liable to pay the compensation. 7. The risk of accident in the course of driving is inherent in the employment of driving of the vehicle. There is nexus between nature of employment and the cause of the death. Hence the finding of the W.C. Commissioner that the accident is in the course of and out of employment is also sound and proper. 8. The claimants have stated that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 1,800/- per month, but the W.C. Commissioner has assessed the wages of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month which is not proper. The reckonable wages is to be taken at Rs.900/- the relevant factor is 213.57. The claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,92,213/- (900 x 213.57) payable with interest at rate of 12% from one month after the accident till payment. 9. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed in the tem1S indicated above.