JUDGMENT Manjunath J, 1. The legality and correctness of the order and award passed by the commissioner for Workmen’s compensation, Bangalore, in case No.WCA/FC/CR-37/2006-07 dt.16.12.2006 is called in question in this appeal. 2. The facts leading to this case are as hereunder: The Respondent-1 lodge a Claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bangalore, on the ground that his son by name Hanumantharayappa @ Hanumanthappa was working as a cleaner under the 2nd Respondent in a passenger bus bearing No.AP-02/V-0639, which vehicle was playing from Pavagada to Venkatammanahalli. On 10th February 2005, in the night the stationed near Govt. School at Venkatammanahalli and his son who was working as a cleaner in the bus was sleeping in the bus. At about 8.30 p.m. a group of Naxalites attacked the Govt. School where K.S.R.P Platoons were there. On account of the attack by group of Naxalites there was firing and unfortunately one of the bullets pierced the body of Hanumanthappa who was sleeping in the bus as a cleaner, as a result of which he died. On the ground that the cleaner died while discharging his duties and during the course of employment, the father of the deceased Hanumanthappa, lodged a claim petition. 3. The appellant herein contended that the terms and conditions of the Policy does not cover the risk of a person who killed in a bullet injury in a Naxalites attack when the bus was not on its enroute playing from Pavagada to Venkatammanahalli or from Venkatammanahalli to Pavagada. According to the appellant, the bus used to halt at Venkatammanahalli. According after the regular schedule trip, the bus was stationed in the front of the Govt. Primary School of Venkatammanahalli, therefore, the death of the cleaner cannot be held that he died during the course of employment while using the bus and that he did not die in a motor vehicle accident. The Commissioner without considering the same, allowed the claim petition awarding a sum of Rs.3,39,420/- with interest accrued thereon. Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. The Commissioner without considering the same, allowed the claim petition awarding a sum of Rs.3,39,420/- with interest accrued thereon. Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. In this background, the only question to be considered by us in this appeal is whether the claim petition lodged by the 1st Respondent was maintainable since the death of Hanumanthappa was on account of the bullet injuries received between the fire exchange of the battalion of Reserve Police and the group of Naxalites. 5. Admittedly, the bus in question for which policy was issued by the appellant was not plying on the enroute between Pavagada to Venkatammanahalli. After the schedule trip of the bus, the bus was halted at Venkatammanahalli and the cleaner was sleeping in the bus and if the cleaner was sleeping in the bus after completion of his duty, it cannot be said that the deceased was on duty. Even otherwise the deceased did not die on account of the motor vehicle accident, it was only on account of the bullet injuries received by him in a clash between the Naxalites group and the Police battalion. As a matter of fact, a sum of Rs.1 lakh has been paid as compensation by the Government on account of the death of Hanumanthappa due to bullet injuries in a Naxalites attack. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the Commissioner did not consider the fact that the deceased was not on duty at the time of the death and that he also did not die on account of the accident occurred to a motor vehicle and that he died on account of the bullet injuries which cannot be attributed as a caused of action to claim compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, based on the policy issued by the appellant since such risk is not covered under the policy. Since the deceased was not on duty as it was beyond the duty hour, just because he was sleeping in the bus cannot be a ground to hold that the appellant – Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation since the deceased did not die during the course of his duty or employment. Since the deceased was not on duty as it was beyond the duty hour, just because he was sleeping in the bus cannot be a ground to hold that the appellant – Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation since the deceased did not die during the course of his duty or employment. In fact it was for the 1st Respondent-claimant to proceed against the State Government to claim compensation on account of the death of his son due to bullet injuries received in an exchange of bullets firing between the Naxalites group and the battalions of Police. 6. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The order and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bangalore in case No.WCA/FC/CR-37/2006-07 dt.16.12.2006 is hereby set aside. The claim lodged by the 1st Respondent is hereby rejected. It is open for the 1st Respondent to file a suit for damages against the Government on account of the death of his son. The amount in deposit is ordered to be returned to the appellant – Insurance Company.