JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:- This appeal by the claimants is directed against the award of the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, West Tripura, Agartala in case no. T.S. (W.C.) 10 of 1998, dated 05.07.2004, whereby the Commissioner dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimants have failed to prove that the death of the deceased had any causal connection with his employment. The undisputed facts, are that Tapan Das, the deceased, was employed as driver by Sri Soumendra Chandra Saha, owner of truck bearing no. TRL 1819. It is also an admitted fact that the truck in question was hired by the Central Reserve Police Force (in short C.R.P.F.) and was deployed in the Teliamura area by the C.R.P.F.. It is also not disputed that on 26.01.1997 Tapan Das was deputed as a driver with the said vehicle. He, however, did not return to the Teliamura police station at night and on the next day his dead body was found in the jungle. The claimants claimed that Tapan Das had died during the course of employment and that his death had direct causal connection with his employment. They accordingly filed a petition under Section 4of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 2. The owner admitted the fact that the deceased was employed as a driver and also admitted that the deceased died during the course of employment. The insurance company raised a plea that the death of Tapan Das had no causal connection with his employment. 3. The learned Commissioner held that the vehicle was parked in the Gamaibari camp of C.R.P.F. and since the vehicle was kept inside the camp the driver was supposed to stay inside the camp with the vehicle. The Commissioner held that the driver had left the camp without the permission of the authority and went to a place called Lembucherra which was far away from the C.R.P.F. camp and was killed by some miscreants. According to the learned Commissioner there was nothing on record to show that the deceased was sent to Lembucherra to perform duties. The Commissioner further went on to hold that as per the report of the police it appeared that Tapan Das was habitual drunker and as such according to the Commissioner the deceased might have gone to Lembucherra to consume alcohol and might have got into a quarrel with some miscreants and got killed. The Commissioner further went on to hold that as per the report of the police it appeared that Tapan Das was habitual drunker and as such according to the Commissioner the deceased might have gone to Lembucherra to consume alcohol and might have got into a quarrel with some miscreants and got killed. Therefore, he dismissed the claim petition. 4. Before dealing with the case on merits, I am constrained to observe, that the approach of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, was a highly technical approach, not at all in consonance with the spirit of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Act in question is a social welfare legislation meant to give relief to poor employees who die or receive injuries during the course of the accident. This Court does not want to state that every claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act must be allowed but the approach of the Commissioners must be less technical and if two views are possible then the view which favours the employee must be taken. 5. Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (now called the Employees Compensation Act and hereinafter referred to as the Act), provides that when a personal injury is caused to the workman by an accident arising out of or in the course of employment, his employer is liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The expression 'arising out of and in the course of employment', has been the subject matter of consideration in a large number of cases. 6. In Messrs. Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Rita Farnandes, 1969 ACJ 419, the Apex Court while dealing with this phrase held as follows: It is well established that under section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act there must be some causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment. If the workman does as a natural result of the disease from which he was suffering of while suffering from a particular disease he dies of that disease as a result of wear and tear of his employment, no liability would be fixed upon the employer. If the workman does as a natural result of the disease from which he was suffering of while suffering from a particular disease he dies of that disease as a result of wear and tear of his employment, no liability would be fixed upon the employer. But if the employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the death, or his death was due not only to the disease but the disease coupled with the employment then it could be said that the death arose out of the employment and the employer would be liable. Even if a workman dies from a pre-existing disease, if the disease is aggravated or accelerated under circumstances which can be said to be accident, his death results from injury by accident. 7. In Mackinnon Mackenzie and co. Private Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mohammad Issak, AIR 1970 SC 1906 , the Apex Court held as follows: To come within the Act the injury by accident must arise 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 gain 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 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. 8. In Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway v. Karthiayani, 1987 ACJ 719, the workman drank water from a drum kept for the purpose in the employer's remises. 8. In Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway v. Karthiayani, 1987 ACJ 719, the workman drank water from a drum kept for the purpose in the employer's remises. He developed acute gastro-enteritis and died. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court at Emakulam held that the death had arisen out of and in the course of employment. 9. The Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ram Prasad and another, 2001 ACJ 647, in a case where the employee was struck by lightning during the course of employment, held that this is also an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. 10. Following the aforesaid judgments, this Court in National Insurance Company v. Smt. Gurmeeto and others, attest HLJ 2006 (HP) 33, held that even when the driver contracted a disease during the course of employment since he had to drive a truck without a wind screen and faced the vagaries of weather, his case was covered by Section 3 of the Act. 11. The Apex Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another, 2007 ACJ 1 , was dealing with a case wherein the deceased who was working as a cleaner of truck died of a heart attack while alighting from the truck. Though the deceased was on duty he had not died of an accident but due to disease. The question which arose before the Apex Court was as to whether the disease arose out of the employment or not. The Apex Court held as follows: 15. The said Act was enacted to provide for payment by certain classes of employers to workmen for compensation against injury by accident. The term 'accidental injury' has not been defined under the Act. The liability of the employer for payment of compensation, however, would arise if a personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. What is necessary for attracting the charging provision contained in Section 3 of the Act is that (i) an injury must be caused to a workman; (ii) such injury must have been caused by an accident; and (iii) it arose out of or in the course of his employment. 16. What is necessary for attracting the charging provision contained in Section 3 of the Act is that (i) an injury must be caused to a workman; (ii) such injury must have been caused by an accident; and (iii) it arose out of or in the course of his employment. 16. Before we analyze the provisions of the Act, we may notice that in the Complaint Petition, there was no allegation that (i) the deceased met with his death by reason of any strain of work; and (ii) Appellant had no personal knowledge as regards quantum of or nature of work required to be performed by the deceased; and (iii) as to how service strain during his services was caused. 17. The deceased had admittedly suffered a massive heart attack. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the heart attack was caused while doing any job. Even according to employer, he at the relevant time was merely getting down from the vehicle. The Apex Court went on to hold that to attract the provisions of Section 3 of the Act the following principles are attracted: (1) There must be a causal connection between the injury and the accident and the accident and the work done in the course of employment. (2) The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the work and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated the injury. (3) If the evidence brought on records establishes a greater probability which satisfies a reasonable man that the work contributed to the causing of the personal injury, it would be enough for the workman to succeed, but the same would depend upon the fact of each case. 12. In Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2009 ACJ 721 , the Apex Court was dealing with a case where the deceased was the driver of a vehicle. He had taken some passengers in his vehicle to a temple as per the directions of his employer. Thereafter, the passengers and the driver went to the temple to pay obeisance. There was a pond next to the temple and the deceased went to take a bath in the pond where he slipped and fell down and unfortunately died. The question that arose was whether this incident arose out of the employment of the deceased. The Apex Court held as follows: 9. There was a pond next to the temple and the deceased went to take a bath in the pond where he slipped and fell down and unfortunately died. The question that arose was whether this incident arose out of the employment of the deceased. The Apex Court held as follows: 9. Under Section 3(1) it has to be established that there was some casual connection between the death of the workman and his employment. If the workman dies a natural death because 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 would be fixed upon the employer. But 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 the death arose out of the employment and the employer would be liable. After making reference to the decisions, the Apex Court held that since the deceased had gone to the pond of his own accord and slipped and fell into the water and died due to drowning, it could not be said that the principles mentioned in para 9 were attracted in the case and held that the claimants were not entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. As far as this judgment of the Apex Court is concerned, it would be pertinent to observe that it may have been the duty of the driver to take the passengers up to the temple but it was no part of his duty to go to the pond and take bath there and hence there was no causal connection between the death and the employment. 13. Claim petitions may arise out of the injuries or death caused due to two reasons. They may arise out of the diseases and/or out of the accidents. In case the death or injury is due to disease then it is incumbent upon the claimants to establish that the disease occurred or got aggravated due to the employment and the nature of work which the workman was doing. They may arise out of the diseases and/or out of the accidents. In case the death or injury is due to disease then it is incumbent upon the claimants to establish that the disease occurred or got aggravated due to the employment and the nature of work which the workman was doing. In case of an accident all that has to be proved is that there is a causal connection between the work which the workman was doing and the accident which was caused. 14. The undisputed facts of the present case were that the owner of the vehicle had hired out the vehicle to the C.R.P.F. The vehicle in question was deployed with the C.R.P.F. There is not an iota of evidence on record to show that either the C.R.P.F. or the owner was providing boarding and lodging facilities to the driver. He shall be deemed to be on duty all the time, because he was not only to drive the vehicle but also to guard it. Obviously, the driver had to leave the vehicle at sometimes. He would have had to answer the call of nature; he would have had to go and eat his meals; he would have times to go and meet friends also. When a person is sent along with a vehicle, he will be required to remain with the vehicle or around the vehicle at all times and has to be treated to be on duty. 15. The next question is, how far was the place of occurrence from the Gamaibari camp? In the award it had been stated that it was very far away and it was argued before me also that Lembucherra was at a distance of 5 kilometers from Gamaibari. If that had been true, the insurance company may have been justified in claiming that the deceased had no business to go 5 kilometers away. Therefore, on 05.09.2013, this Court had passed a detailed order and had directed the Civil Judge(Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Khowai to visit the area in question and find out the distance of the place of occurrence from Gamaibari camp. This report has been submitted and according to this report the distance between the place of occurrence and the place where the camp of the C.R.P.F. at Gamaibari was located at the relevant time was only 1 kilometer. This report has been submitted and according to this report the distance between the place of occurrence and the place where the camp of the C.R.P.F. at Gamaibari was located at the relevant time was only 1 kilometer. Obviously the workman would have had to go to Lembucherra to get meals or other necessities of life. True it is, that if the occurrence had happened at the place where the deceased was residing such an event could be said to have no causal connection with the employment but in the present case since the driver was deployed with the truck and had been sent out of station, he would be deemed to have been on duty as long as he was on or near the truck. Therefore, I am of the considered view that in the present case the death of the deceased has direct causal connection with his employment. 16. Coming to the question of compensation, at the relevant time the maximum wages which could be taken into consideration were Rs. 2,000/- and 50% of the wages have to be multiplied by the relevant factor. 50% of the wages work out to Rs. 1,000/- and the relevant factor in the case of the deceased who was stated to be 28 years works out to be 211.79. The claimants are also entitled to Rs. 1000/- as funeral expenses in terms of Section 4(4) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and therefore, the total compensation works out to Rs. 2,12,719. On this amount the claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from 26.02.1997 till payment/deposit of the awarded amount. Since the vehicle was insured with the insurance company, it is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation within 3 (three) months from today. The appeal is thus disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Send back the LCRs forthwith.