JUDGMENT Satya Poot Mehrotra and Rajesh Chandra, JJ.—It is submitted by Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant that as per the findings recorded by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, the deceased met with an accident while going to his house for taking dinner with the alleged permission of the owner? of the vehicle in question. It is submitted that even though the accident took place when the deceased was driving truck from West Bengal to Ghaziabad but the same did not arise out of employment as at the time of the accident. The deceased was not engaged in any activity incidental to the duties of the service. 2. It is submitted that the words “accident arising out of employment” have been incorporated to him that the accident should take place while doing same activity involving risk incidental to the duties of the service. 3. In the present case, the submission proceeded, the accident took place when the deceased was going to take dinner at his house, and therefore, his activity was not such which could be said to be incidental to the duties of the service. 4. Reliance has been placed by Sri. Amit Manohar on a decision of the Supreme Court in Malikarjuna G. HIremath v. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2009 (2) TAC 17 : 2009 (1) ACCD 502 : 2009 (2) AWC 1214 (SC), having considered the submissions made by Sri Amit Manohar learned counsel for the appellant. 5. We are prima facie satisfied that the following substantial question of law is involved in the present case. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the findings recorded by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in the impugned order and judgment, the accident took place when the deceased was engaged in an activity involving risk incidental to the duties of the service and was met with an accident “arising out of employment” of the deceased? Admit. Issue notice. 6. Sri K. M. Mishra has already put in appearance on behalf of the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 7. Therefore, no notice be issued to the said respondent. Notice will be issued to respondent No. 8 by registered post A.D. fixing 13.1.2010. Requisite steps will be taken within 2 weeks. Heard on the question of grant of interim relief. 6. Sri K. M. Mishra has already put in appearance on behalf of the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 7. Therefore, no notice be issued to the said respondent. Notice will be issued to respondent No. 8 by registered post A.D. fixing 13.1.2010. Requisite steps will be taken within 2 weeks. Heard on the question of grant of interim relief. The amount awarded under the impugned judgment and order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has already been deposited by the appellant as is evident from the certificate filed alongwith the supplementary-affidavit. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by Sri Amit Manohar learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Akash Mishra holding brief of Sri K. N. Mishra, advocate appearing for claimants-respondents No. 1 to 7 directed that the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 8.9.2001, will remain stayed until further order of the Court subject to the following terms and conditions : 1. Out of the amount awarded respectfully to each of the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 7, 50% of the amount will be paid to each of such respondents without furnishing any security. 2. Balance amount of the deposit will be invested in maximum interest bearing fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank renewable from time to time. The payment of such deposit will be subjected to further order of this Court. 8. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit may be exchanged between the parties by the next date.