JUDGMENT V. Jagannathan, J : Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant in respect of the appeal preferred by the claimants aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim application by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Haveri. None appears for the respondent. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Commissioner was in error in dismissing the claim application and the finding that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment is erroneous and, as such, the impugned order be set aside. 3. Referring to the facts of the case, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the deceased Hanumanthappa Ningappa Mudigowdara, son of the 1st appellant and the elder brother of the 2nd appellant, was working in Indo American Hybrid Seeds India Pvt. Ltd., at Chikkellur, Kengeri Taluk, Mysore Road, Bangalore, and on 16.08.1998 while working in the Seeds Farm, deceased developed stomach pain and, therefore, he went to the hospital to take treatment and while returning from the hospital, accidentally, the deceased was hit by a moving train when the deceased tried to cross the railway line near Kengeri-Hejjala railway station. Stating that the deceased was aged 22 years and was getting Rs.100/- per day, the appellants filed claim application before the Commissioner. In turn, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, after appreciating the evidence on record, arrived at the conclusion that the accident never arose out of the employment of the deceased nor was it in the course of the employment and, under these circumstances, claim application was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the claimants. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants, Shri. M.H.Patil, relying on the decision reported in 1969 ACJ 422 in the case of Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Put. Ltd. Vs. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak and 1995 ACJ 308 in the case of Maherunisha Ahemadkhan Pathan and others us. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, contended that as the deceased was returning from the hospital after taking treatment for the stomach pain, the accident will have to-be held as having occurred in the course of employment and also having arisen out of the employment of the deceased. 5. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, contended that as the deceased was returning from the hospital after taking treatment for the stomach pain, the accident will have to-be held as having occurred in the course of employment and also having arisen out of the employment of the deceased. 5. Having regard to the above submission put forward and after having carefully gone through the material on record, I am of the view that the finding of the Commissioner does not call for any interference for following reasons: It is an admitted fact that the deceased went to the hospital for taking treatment on account of the stomach pain he had and while returning he was ran over by a train when the deceased was trying to cross the railway line near Kengeri-Hejjala railway station. The deceased died on the spot. Whether it is possible to infer from the above circumstances that the accident occurred 'out of and in the course of employment' is the question. In my view, the very facts admitted by the appellants does not bring the case within the expression "arising out of and in the course of the employment". Merely, because the deceased went to the hospital to take treatment for the stomach pain does not make it a case of one arising out of employment. Secondly, the deceased while crossing railway line did not take notice of the oncoming train and was hit by it. Therefore, the question of accident having arisen out of and in the course of employment does not arise. The apex Court in the case of Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Put. Ltd. Vs. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak has held that the expression "arising out of employment" is not confined to the mere nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents and 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. 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. The Apex Court in the aforementioned case, therefore, agreed with the Commissioner who had dismissed the claim application where the facts revealed that the seaman was found missing from the ship while on the high seas and the Apex Court reversed the finding of the High Court, which had reversed the finding of the Commissioner. In the case on hand it cannot be said that the place where the accident occurred i.e., the railway line, when the deceased was ran over by the train, would be brought within the zone of special danger to which the deceased was exposed by virtue of nature of his employment. As such, the aforesaid ruling does not help the appellants' Counsel though it was cited by him. As far as the other decision reported in 1995 ACJ 308 is concerned, the facts of that case are entirely different than the one with which we are concerned. 6. For the above reasons, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.