A.K. Goswami, J.;— This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for short, the Act, against the judgement and order dated 22.12.2010 passed the learned Commissioner, Kamrup (M) in W.C. Case No. 77 of 2009, whereby the learned Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs. 3,41,380/- as compensation in respect of death of Narayan Nath in a vehicular accident. By the said order, the appellant was directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a month from the date of receipt of the order failing which it was also directed that the Insurance Company will be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. after one month of passing of the order. 2. The case of the claimant is that her husband was employed by one Shri Deep Sarma as a driver of his vehicle No. AS-01/X-9295 (Tata Indica). On 20.01.2007, the husband of the claimant was going towards Lanka in the said vehicle along with his employer and when the employer got down at Lanka for marketing, her husband was in the car. At that point of time, some miscreants took away the vehicle with the driver in the car and he remained traceless till 25.11.2007 and on 25.11.2007, his dead body was found floating in Kolong River under Roha Police Station. Stating that her husband used to earn a sum of Rs. 4,000/- p.m as salary and that he was 40 years old at the time of his death, the claim petition was filed for compensation on the basis that her husband was killed by the miscreants during the course of and arising out of his employment. 3. In the written statement, the employer supported the case of the claimant including on the point of payment of salary and the incident leading to the death of Narayan Nath. In the written statement filed by the Insurance Company, claim was denied. 4. The claimant had adduced the evidence of the claimant and she had also exhibited certain documents in support of her claim. There was no evidence from the side of Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal on consideration of the materials on record, held that the deceased was aged about 45 years and accordingly, granted compensation of Rs. 3,41,380/- which included an amount of Rs. 2,500/- towards funeral cost. 5. I have heard Mr. There was no evidence from the side of Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal on consideration of the materials on record, held that the deceased was aged about 45 years and accordingly, granted compensation of Rs. 3,41,380/- which included an amount of Rs. 2,500/- towards funeral cost. 5. I have heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel for the appellant for admission of the appeal. His sole contention is that the death of the deceased did not occur in the course of and arising out of employment. 6. In order to attract the charging provisions contained in Section 3 of Act, it is necessary that: (i) an injury must be caused to a workman; (ii) such injury must have been caused by an accident; (iii) it arose out of or in the course of his employment. 7. In General Manager, B.E.S. T undertaking, Bombay Vs. Mrs. Agnes, reported in AIR 1964 SC 193 , the basic facts were to the effect that one Nanu Raman, who was a bus driver employed by the Corporation, after finishing his work and leaving the bus in a depot, boarded another bus to go to his residence. The said bus met with an accident as a result of which Nanu Raman expired. On a claim petition filed under the provision of the Act, a sum of Rs. 3,500/- was granted as compensation by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation holding that the accident had arisen "out of and in the course of his employment." The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company in the High Court of Bombay was dismissed and in the appeal before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court by a majority judgement stated as follows: "30. Under s. 3(1) of the Act the injury must be caused to the workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The question, when does an employment begin and when does it cease, depends upon the facts of each case. But the Courts have agreed that the employment does not necessarily end when the "down tool" signal is given or when the workman leaves the actual workshop where he is working. There is a notional extension of both the entry and exit by time and space. The scope of such extension must necessarily depend on the circumstances of a given case. There is a notional extension of both the entry and exit by time and space. The scope of such extension must necessarily depend on the circumstances of a given case. An employment may end or may begin not only when the employee begins to work or leaves his tools but also when he uses the means of access and egress to and from the place of employment. A contractual duty or obligation on the part of an employee to use only a particular means of transport extends the area of the field of employment to the course of the said transport. Though at the beginning the word "duty" has been strictly construed, the later decisions have liberalized this concept. A theoretical option to take an alternative route may not detract from such a duty if the accepted one is of proved necessity or of practical compulsion. But none of the decisions cited at the Bar deals with a transport service operating over a large area like Bombay. They are, therefore, of little assistance, except in so far as they laid down the principles of general application. Indeed, some of the law Lords expressly excluded from the scope of their discussion cases where the exigencies of work compel an employee to traverse public streets and other public places.. The problem that now arises before us is a novel one and is not covered by authority." 8. In Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. (P) Ltd Vs. Ibraham Mahmmed Issak, reported in 7969 (2) SCC 607, the Supreme Court stated as follows: "5. To come within the Act the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment. The words " in the course of the employment" mean " in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it." The words "arising out of employment" are understood to mean that " during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered." In other words there must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment. The expression "arising out of employment" is again not confined to the mere nature of the employment. The expression "arising out of employment" is again not confined to the mere nature of the employment. The expression applies to employment as such- to its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents. If by reasons of any of those factors the workman is brought within the zone of special danger the injury would be one which arises 'out of the 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 workmen has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act. In Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co. -vs- Highley, Lord Summer laid down the following test for determining whether an accident" arose out of the employment." "There is, however, in my opinion, one test which is always at any rate applicable, because it arises upon the very words of the statute, and it is generally of some real assistance. It is this: was it part of the injured person's employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do that which caused his injury? If yes, the accident arose out of his employment. If nay, it did not, because, what it was not part of the employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do, cannot well be the cause of an accident arising out of the employment. To ask if the cause of the workman was within the sphere of the employment, or was one of the ordinary risks of the employment, or reasonably incidental to the employment, or was one of the ordinary risks of the employment, or reasonably incidental to the employment, or conversely, was an added peril and outside the sphere of the employment, are all different ways of asking whether it was a part of his employment, that the workman should have acted as he was acting, or should have been in the position in which he was, whereby in the course of that employment he sustained injury". 9. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Philo & Ors., reported in 1996 ACJ 849, a claim petition was rejected under the provision of the Act stating that the deceased, who was the husband of first claimant and father of claimant Nos. 2 to 4, was a driver of a Tourist Taxi and was an employee of the first opposite party. Ltd. Vs. Philo & Ors., reported in 1996 ACJ 849, a claim petition was rejected under the provision of the Act stating that the deceased, who was the husband of first claimant and father of claimant Nos. 2 to 4, was a driver of a Tourist Taxi and was an employee of the first opposite party. He was engaged by the first opposite party to drive the Tourist Taxi with passengers for hiring and accordingly, he had taken tourists in the car. He did not return back after the tour and it was reported that he was killed and the car stolen by somebody. Before the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, the Insurance Company who was the second opposite party, had denied the contention that the driver had sustained fatal injuries because of the accident arising out of and in course of his employment. It was contended that the incident is not an accident and that it was a cold blooded murder and that a murder by a third party cannot be an accident and hence it was not liable to pay any compensation. The said contention was rejected by the learned Commissioner and compensation was awarded. The High Court of Kerala, in the appeal, sustained that judgement of the Commissioner and held that but for the engagement as a driver of the taxi, the deceased would not have been in the place and in the situation where he was at the time when he was killed. It was held that causal connection was complete and that the accident which had resulted in the death of the workman, had arisen out of the employment. 10. In National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Sabita Gope & Ors, reported in 2000 (1) GLT 27, the deceased who was a driver of a Truck was sent by the employer on duty from Ghowai to Guwahati along with his assistant. Due to strike, they could not go beyond Patharkandi of Cachar District, Assam. At night after taking meal, the deceased slept inside the cabin of the Truck and the assistant on top of the Truck. Next morning when the assistant got down from the top of the Truck he saw the driver lying dead in the cabin of the Truck. Due to strike, they could not go beyond Patharkandi of Cachar District, Assam. At night after taking meal, the deceased slept inside the cabin of the Truck and the assistant on top of the Truck. Next morning when the assistant got down from the top of the Truck he saw the driver lying dead in the cabin of the Truck. Against the award of compensation granted by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, the Insurance Company had preferred an appeal questioning the legality of the award on the ground that the personal injury was not caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment of the deceased driver and contending that the learned Commissioner had fallen into error in overlooking the provision contained in Section 3 of the Act. This Court, while dismissing the appeal of the Insurance Company, held that the deceased had to be in a particular spot at that particular moment in course of his employment and by reason of his employment, he met with the untoward event because he was there in course of his employment. 11. The facts of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ujjala Debnath & Ors, reported in 2001 (1) GLT32 is somewhat similar to the facts of Sabita Gope (supra), In this case, the driver was sent on duty from Udaipur in Tripura to Calcutta in a Truck driven by him. On the return journey, he stopped at Barasat town for taking meal and after taking meal, he slept inside the cabin of the vehicle and in the morning he fell ill and complained of chest pain. He was rushed to the hospital where he was declared dead. This Court, relying on Sabita Gope (supra) dismissed the appeal of the Insurance Company holding that the causal connection is apparent and that the same was an accident arising out of and in course of employment. 12. In Jyothi Ademma Vs. Plant Engineer, Nellore & Anr., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 513 , the Apex Court reiterated that under Section 3(1) of the Act has it has to be established that there was some causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment. 12. In Jyothi Ademma Vs. Plant Engineer, Nellore & Anr., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 513 , the Apex Court reiterated that under Section 3(1) of the Act has it has to be established that there was some causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment. If the workman dies as a natural result of the disease which he was suffering or while suffering from a particular disease he dies of that disease as a result of wear and tear of the employment, no liability can be fixed upon the employer. It was also held, however, that if the employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the death, or if the death was due not only to the disease but also the disease coupled with the employment, then it can be said that death arose out of the employment and the employer would be liable. 13. In Jyothi Ademma (supra), the deceased was suffering from chest disease and was previously treated for such disease and it was also held that there was no scope for any stress or strain in his duties. In paragraph 7 of the said judgment, the Apex Court also stated as follows: "7. The expression " accident " means an untoward mishap which is not expected or designed. "Injury" means physiological injury. In Fenton -vs- Thorley & Co. Ltd. it was observed that the expression "accident" is used in the popular and ordinary sense of the word as denoting an unlocked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed. The above view of Lord Macnaghten was qualified by the speech of Lord Haldane. A.C. in Trim Joint District School Board of Management -vs- Kelly as follows : "I think that the context shows that in using the word 'designed' Lord Macnaghten was referring to designed by the sufferer." 14. In Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Bongaigaon Vs. Jasmina Khatun & Anr, (M.F.A. No. 18 of 2012) decided on 13.6.2012, this Court observed as follows: "11. In Shakuntala (supra), the deceased was working as a Cleaner in a vehicle belonging to the respondent No. 1. He was travelling in the said vehicle at night and he suddenly developed chest pain and was admitted to the Government hospital, where the doctor declared him dead. In Shakuntala (supra), the deceased was working as a Cleaner in a vehicle belonging to the respondent No. 1. He was travelling in the said vehicle at night and he suddenly developed chest pain and was admitted to the Government hospital, where the doctor declared him dead. It was not disputed that the incident had occurred while the deceased was performing his duties. The autopsy was conducted wherein the cause of death was opined as cardiac arrest due to rupture of aortic aneurysm. 12. On the aforesaid facts, the question that fell for consideration of the Apex Court was as to whether the deceased died of accidental injury in the course of and out of employment. The death had occurred at a time when the deceased was getting down from the vehicle. The Apex Court noted that in the claim petition, there was no allegation that the deceased met with his death by reason of strain of work. There was also absence of material regarding the quantum or nature of work required to be performed by the deceased as well as how strenuous his service was. 15. The Apex Court in Shakuntala (supra), laid down the following in paragraphs 24 and 25: "24. There is a crucial link between the causal connection of employment with death. Such a link with evidence cannot be matter of surmise or conjecture. If a finding is arrived at without pleading or legal evidence the statutory authority will commit a jurisdictional error while exercising jurisdiction. 25. An accident may lead to death but that an accident had taken place must be proved. Only because a death has taken place in course of employment will not amount to accident. In other words, death must arise out of accident. There is no presumption that an accident had occurred". 16. The Apex Court also quoted the decision rendered in Dover Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. Isabella Craig, reported in (1939) 4 All ER 558 (HL), wherein it was held as follows: " Nothing could be simpler than the words arising ' out of and in the course of the employment'. It is clear that there are two conditions to be fulfilled. What arises 'in the course' of the employment is to be distinguished from what arises 'out of employment'. The former words relate to time conditioned by reference to the man's service, the latter to causality. It is clear that there are two conditions to be fulfilled. What arises 'in the course' of the employment is to be distinguished from what arises 'out of employment'. The former words relate to time conditioned by reference to the man's service, the latter to causality. Not every accident which occurs to a man during the time when he is on his employment - that is, directly or indirectly engaged on what he is employed to do -give a claim to compensation, unless it also arises out of the employment. Hence the section imports a distinction which does not define. The language is simple and unqualified." 17. In Manager, Hanuman Bagh Tea Estate Vs. Puneshwari Kurmi, reported in 2008 (I) GLT 651, the facts were that the deceased, who was a permanent workman under the appellant, was discharging his duty as a Dresser in the Hanuman Bagh Garden Hospital and at about 12:00 noon, he was killed by some miscreants. Against the award of compensation, an appeal was preferred contending that there was no relationship between the incident and employment of the deceased worker. This Court held that the deceased was to be provided with necessary security in his working place and such security is inherent with the concept of employment provided to him and thereby dismissed the appeal. 18. In Malikarjuna G. Hiremath Vs. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2009) 13 SCC 405 , the deceased who was driving the vehicle on the direction of the insurer had gone to Gurugunta Amreshwara from Sirag-uppa. There he had gone to a temple and while sitting on the steps of the pond in the temple, he had slipped and fell into the water and died due to drowning. The Apex Court on the aforesaid factual matrix, held that the deceased did not die out of and during the course of employment. 19. To come within the ambit of the Act, the injury by accident must necessarily arise both out of and in the course of employment. The words "in the course of the employment" mean in the course of the work which the workmen is employed to do and which is incidental to it. The word "arising out of employment" mean that during the course of employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service. The words "in the course of the employment" mean in the course of the work which the workmen is employed to do and which is incidental to it. The word "arising out of employment" mean that during the course of employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service. Of course, the workman must not expose himself to an added peril or risk by his own imprudent or rash act. There must be a crucial link between the causal connection of employment with death. Coming to the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the deceased had taken his employer in the car and while the employer had got down at Lanka to do some marketing, he was sitting in the vehicle. The deceased was waiting for the employer to come back to the vehicle and at that point of time, the miscreants forcefully took the vehicle away with the deceased in the vehicle. The expression "arising out of employment" cannot be confined to the mere nature of the employment. It takes within its fold obligations, conditions and incidents. It is part of the employment of the deceased to wait in the car for the employer to come back after the employer is finished with his work. Waiting for the employer in the car is within the sphere of his employment. There is always a danger or risk of a vehicle being waylaid or hijacked and this risk is incidental to the duties of a driver. The deceased was in the vehicle in course of his employment and the accident occurred out of his employment. He also did not expose himself to any added peril. 20. In view of the discussions above, this Court is unable to accept the contention that the death had not occurred arising out of and in course of the employment of the deceased. 21. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. _____________