JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal arises from the impugned verdict recorded by the learned Commissioner exercising powers under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, ( for short the “Commissioner”), whereby, he allowed the application preferred therebefore, by the claimants herein and proceeded to assess vis-a-vis the successors-ininterest/ claimants, of, deceased Dilbag Singh, compensation amount comprised in a sum of Rs. 2,52,075.50 paisa along with all statutory benefits, indemnificatory liability(ies) whereof was fastened upon the Oriental Insurance Company, appellant herein also a sum of Rs.50,000/- was ordered to be paid by respondents No.1 and 2, namely, Rajinder Kumar and Amit Kumar. He also directed that the aforesaid quantified compensation amount shall be equally shared by all the claimants. 2. The Insurance company-appellant herein, standing aggrieved by the rendition, recorded by the learned Commissioner, hence, concerts to assail it, by preferring an appeal therefrom, before this Court. 3. When the appeal came up for admission, on 03.01.2011, this Court, admitted the appeal, instituted herebefore by the Insurance Company-appellants herein, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the death of deceased resultant of his murder (cause of death Asphyxia due to strangulation) by the driver of vehicle, who was also convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, had not arisen out of an “accident” during the course of his employment and therefore, the claim set up by claimants under the provisions of \Workmen's Compensation Act was not tenable and claim petition was liable to be dismissed? 2. Whether deceased Dilbag Singh, who at the relevant time was under the employment of respondent No.6 with whom there was no privity of contract as the policy of insurance effect from 23.10.2000 to 22.10.2001 was issued by the insurer in the name of respondent No.7 and since respondents No.6 and 7 had mutually entered into a lease agreement dated 23.10.2000, whereunder vehicle in question was being plied by respondent NO.6, on account of respondent No.6 having no insurable interest, the liability for payment of compensation money to the claimants could be legally and validly foisted on insurance company? 3. Whether the claim petition which was filed by claimants on 25.07.2003 for claiming compensation on account of death of late Sh. 3. Whether the claim petition which was filed by claimants on 25.07.2003 for claiming compensation on account of death of late Sh. Dilbag Singh who was murdered on or about 26/27-01-2001 was beyond the prescribed period of limitation of two years and thus being time barred, deserved to be dismissed? Substantial questions of law No.1. 4. Uncontrovertedly, the aforesaid Dilbag Singh, was, murdered by his co-employee, one Rajesh alias Gutka. The aforesaid, as is apparent, on, a perusal of Ex.P-4, was convicted and sentenced for a charge under Section 302 of the IPC. The employer of both deceased Dilbag Singh and of Rajesh alias Gutka, does not, contest the factum of his engaging the aforesaid upon vehicle bearing No. HR-55A- 1536, TATA 407, respectively as a helper/cleaner and as a driver thereon also there is uncontroverted evidence on record in respect of convict Rajesh alias Gutka, murdering, one Dilbag Singh, during the course, when both were performing the relevant calls of their avocation upon truck bearing No. HR-55A-1536, respectively in their employed capacity as a cleaner and as a driver thereon. 5. However, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company-appellant herein has contended with vigour, that the signification borne by the hereafter underlined apt portion of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), “If personal injury is caused to [an employee] by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment”, is, limited besides trammeled only within the domain of a stricto sensu, fortuitous event or a fortuitous mishap, whereas the ill event of any deceased employee, being murdered by his co-employee, falling outside its purview. The aforesaid narrow ascription vis-a-vis the connotation(s) borne by the apt underlined portion of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, is, palpably, outside, the true nuance, innate spirit and the intent of the legislature, inasmuch as, the true signification or scope besides parlance borne by the aforesaid statutory coinage, is, of its encompassing, befallment upon a workman all fortuitous events or mishaps, conspicuously, “if all” evidently arise out of and in the course of employment. The aforesaid broad ascription vis-a-vis the signification borne by the relevant statutory coinage occurring in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, rather hence takes within its field or ambit, even the fortuitous misfortune of an employee being murdered by his co-employee “unless” there exists no casual connection inter se the fortuitous event or mishap vis-a-vis the callings of his avocation, also especially when its befalment upon the workman concerned neither arise(s) out of nor is in the course of his performing employment under his employer. However, as aforestated, there is undisputed besides clinching evidence in respect of the deceased workman, being murdered by his co-employee also there is firm evidence in respect of the aforesaid tragic event being fortuitous besides of its evidently arising out of or its befalment upon the deceased, occurring, during the course of his performing his employment under his employer. Consequently, this Court, does not, accept the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, that the murder of deceased workman by his co-employee, dehors, even when it has occurred during the course of his performing employment under his employer or it has arisen during the course of his performing the callings of his avocation, rather falling outside the innate spirit besides subtle nuance carried by the apt aforesaid statutory coinage borne in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. 6. The aforesaid legal expostulation garner(s) immense strength, from a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in a case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sheela Bai Jain and another, 2007 ACJ 1126 , the relevant paragraphs No. 12 and 13 whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “12. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Veena Sethi, 2002 ACJ 843 (Orissa), it was held that murder arose out of and in the course of employment, murder took place while driver had taken the vehicle for delivering goods and was returning when he was killed by someone, it was held that driver was discharging his duties on behalf of the employer and very nature of his employment made it imperative for him to drive the vehicle and put it at the spot where he was killed. It was held that accident arose out of and in the course of employment. It was held that accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The Supreme Court in Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Francis De Costa, 1996 ACJ 1281 (SC), has laid down that while interpreting the meaning of the expression 'arising out of and in course of employment', there has to be causal connection between the accident and employment. The Apex Court has observed: “(29) ...In order to succeed, it has to be proved by the employee that (1) there was an accident, (2) the accident had a causal connection with the employment and (3) the accident must have been suffered in course of employment....” 13. The Supreme Court in Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak, 1969 ACJ 422 (SC), has held that the words 'in the course of 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. The Apex Court held: “(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 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 causal relationship between the accident and employment. The expression 'arising out of employment' is again not confined to the mere nature of 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'. 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....”” (..p.1128P Wherein, the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, has, held that even when the demise of the workman concerned, is, a sequel to his being murdered by an unknown person, his successor-in-interests, yet holding a leverage to file a petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act also hence the tragic event befalling upon the deceased workman being within the ambit of the apt statutory coinage, importantly when evidence exists in display of the deceased workman concerned at the relevant time, discharging the callings of his avocation, thereupon, his demise being amenable to be construable to arise out of and in the course of his performing his employment under his employer. 7. A similar, view has been expostulated by the High Court of Delhi in a case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Kanshi Ram and others, 2006 ACJ 492, the relevant paragraph No.20 whereof stands extracted hereinafter: “20. Finally, learned counsel for the Appellant relied upon the following passage in Rita Devi, 2000 ACJ 801 (SC): "The question, therefore is, can a murder be an accident in any given case? There is no doubt that "murder", as it is understood, in the common parlance is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act normally have a motive against the victim for such killing. But there are also instances where murder can be by accident on a given set of facts. The difference between a "murder" which is not an accident and a "murder" which is an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. But there are also instances where murder can be by accident on a given set of facts. The difference between a "murder" which is not an accident and a "murder" which is an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. In our opinion, if the dominant intention of the Act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simpliciter, while if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder."” (p.496) Even though, in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court, a, distinction has been drawn between murder simplicitor and murder committed in furtherance of any other felonious act also therein a further concomitant distinction, is, carved, of, murder simplicitor, not, falling within the ambit of the apt statutory coinage, occurring, sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, whereas, murder committed in furtherance of a felonious act, being, encompassed within the ambit of the apt statutory coinage, occurring, in subsection( 1) of Section 3 of the Act. Nonetheless, with no evidence standing adduced by the Insurance company in display of the murder of the deceased by convict Rajesh alis Gutka being merely a murder simplicitor, thereupon, hence, it is concluded that the commission of murder of deceased Dilbag Singh, by his co-employee on Rajesh alias Gutka, was, in furtherance of a felonious act, concomitant effect(s) whereof is thereupon “it” falling within the ambit of the apt statutory coinage. Consequently, substantial question No.1 is answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellant. Substantial question of law No.2. 8. The owner of vehicle, respondent No.7 herein, had executed a lease agreement borne in Ex.R-1 with respondent No.6, namley, Amit Kumar, in pursuance thereof, he had employed both deceased Dilbag Singh and convict Rajesh alias Gutka upon vehicle bearing No.HR-55A-1536. However, there is no valid contract of insurance executed inter se Amit Kumar vis-a-vis Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., whereby, the fortuitous event which befell upon one Dilbag Singh, was insured. However, there is no valid contract of insurance executed inter se Amit Kumar vis-a-vis Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., whereby, the fortuitous event which befell upon one Dilbag Singh, was insured. Want of adduction into evidence, of, a validly executed contract of insurance inter se the appellant herein vis-a-vis Amit Kumar, in respect of the risks befalling upon workman employed by him upon the relevant vehicle leased to him by its owner, impleaded, herein as respondent No.7, cannot constrain this Court, to, fasten the apposite indemnificatory liability upon the insurance company-appellant herein. Contrarily, the indemnificatory liability is fastened upon the employer of Dilbag Singh, namely, Amit Kumar, respondent No.6 herein. Consequently, substantial question of law No.2 is answered in favour of the appellants herein and against the respondents. Substantial question No.3. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein-insurance company has contended before this Court that he does not press for an adjudication being rendered on substantial question No.3. Hence, answered accordingly. 10. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, the award by passed by the learned Commissioner is modified to the extent that the amounts of compensation as stand assessed by the learned Commissioner along with all statutory benefits, are, amenable to defrayment in equal share vis-a-vis all the coclaimants by respondent No.6 herein, namely, Amit Kumar. The employer shall forthwith deposit the compensation amount in the Registry of this Court. Further disbursements therefrom vis-a-vis the claimants be made subject to the amounts previously disbursed vis-a-vis the claimants being deposited by the latter in the Registry. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.