JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. (Oral) - Heard learned advocate Mr. Lakhani for the Appellant - Insurance Company as well as Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 being original claimant before the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the W.C. Act" for short) and Labour Court at Rajkot in Workman Compensation (Fatal Application No. 19/2006. Perused the record as well as Record and Proceedings of the impugned award and judgment dated 15.7.2014. 2. The Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award dated 15.7.2014 contending that there is no nexus with the incident wherein deceased employee and victim of the incident, namely Mr. Parmar Anadabhai Gorabhai had expired, with his employment and, therefore, his legal heirs are not entitled to compensation under the W.C. Act. 3. While issuing notice by order dated 16.9.2014, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has, therefore opined that the matter will be required to be remanded to the Commissioner for its retrial for its proper appreciation of evidence, considering that the deceased workman was murdered at a place other than the place of his work. 4. Whereas while admitting the appeal by order dated 25.7.2016, another Coordinate Bench has framed following questions for consideration: - (A) That the question of law involved in this appeal is "whether a person who is murdered due to personal enmity can claim compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act on the ground that incident occurred during the course of his employment ?" (B) That "Whether after withdrawing compensation application filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can a claimant maintain another compensation application under the Workmen Compensation Act in view of section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ?". 5. However while framing above question though Coordinate Bench has stayed the execution of impugned award directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner and direction for disbursement of such amount was also made to the effect that 70% amount be invested in FDR and 30% amount be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased victim. Learned advocate for the Appellant has confirmed that such directions had been complied with by depositing the amount before the Commissioner. 6. So far as incident is concerned, It is undisputed fact that when deceased Mr. Learned advocate for the Appellant has confirmed that such directions had been complied with by depositing the amount before the Commissioner. 6. So far as incident is concerned, It is undisputed fact that when deceased Mr. Parmar Anadabhai Gorabhai being husband of respondent No. 1/1 and father of respondent nos.1/2 to 1/5 was driving his truck No. GJ-3V- 8469 on national highway near Karjan, some anti social elements have stopped the vehicle by force and committed loot and in such incident of loot, the Gundas have killed Mr. Parmar Anadabhai Gorabhai. Thereby, it is undisputed fact that deceased Mr. Parmar Anadabhai Gorabhai had met with the fatal accident when he was on his duty as a driver of such truck. Therefore, when death of the victim has taken place in accident which was arisen out of and in course of his employment, his employer is liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the W.C. Act. 7. Whereas, when employer has insured the vehicle and thereby when Appellant has accepted the liability to indemnify the employer in case of his liability to pay compensation either under the W.C. Act or under M.V. Act, the amount of compensation that may be awarded in favour of the legal heirs of the victim or the injured victim, the Insurance Company has to indemnify the employer by making such payment to the victim or his legal heirs. 8. After full fledge trial, the Commissioner has by impugned award and judgment dated 15.7.2014 came to the conclusion that death of the victim was because of accident arisen out of and in the course of employment and awarded an amount of Rs. 3,95,162/- with interest to be paid by the Appellant - Insurance Company when vehicle was insured by it. 9. Being aggrieved by such award and judgment, the Appellant has preferred this appeal contending that when Gundas' have looted the vehicle and killed its driver, it cannot be treated as an accident and that too arising out of and in the course of employment of the driver, since it is a tortuous act by criminals and liability of employer to pay compensation in such situation is not covered under the policy. 10. Learned advocate Mr. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Lakhani has vehemenly challenging the impugned award relying to the contentions by the Appellant both before the tribunal as well as in the appeal memo so as to impress upon the Court that when there is killing of a person by someone i.e. murder of a driver by someone, only because such murder was on the vehicle where deceased was serving as a driver, it cannot be said that employer is liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the victim and, thereby, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the victim so as to indemnify the owner. For such submission, the Appellant has relied upon factual details of the incident. 11. However, there is no scope of interference in impugned award by the Commissioner so as to allow this appeal because there are catena of judgments of different Courts including Hon'ble Supreme Court confirming that what could be the scope of term "accident"; so also phrase "arising out and in the course of employment" with reference to the W.C. Act. The over all reading of such different citations makes it clear that the meaning of word "accident" and the phrase "arising out and in the course of employment" are vide enough to cover different situations and, thereby, to fasten the liability upon employer and or its insurer to pay the compensation either to the injured victim or to legal representative of deceased victim. 12. Therefore, prima-facie there is no substance in the appeal which may require to be dismissed and, therefore, it is taken up for final hearing and disposed of as dismissed by this judgment. 13. It cannot be ignored that the Commissioner has assigned cogent reasons for fixing the liability of the Appellant to pay compensation. I am in agreement with such reasoning by the Commissioner and since those reasons are well described in the impugned award, I do not wish to reproduce the same. 14. 13. It cannot be ignored that the Commissioner has assigned cogent reasons for fixing the liability of the Appellant to pay compensation. I am in agreement with such reasoning by the Commissioner and since those reasons are well described in the impugned award, I do not wish to reproduce the same. 14. So far as factual aspect is concerned, it is contended by the Appellant that in-fact the chargesheet for committed the murder of the victim was filed before the competent court, however, learned advocate for the claimant has pointed out that in-fact in such Sessions Case, Investigating Agency could not prove that who committed the murder of the victim and, therefore, the conclusive evidence is only to the effect that there was death of the victim when he was driving the vehicle and, therefore, irrespective of nature of death which can certainly be considered as a accidental death, it becomes clear that victim has expired when he was on duty and, therefore, such death is to be treated as accidental death arising from and in the course of employment of the deceased victim. 15. Thereby, if deceased has received fatal injuries when he was in his services, the reason of injuries are not material but assessment of injuries alone are sufficient and material to fasten the liability of the employer to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased victim because the basic principle of the W.C. Act is quite clear that negligence of victim is not to be considered but if any person has received any injuries accidentally which was arisen when victim was in services, the employer is liable to pay compensation to the victim or his legal heirs. If such employer has insured himself for such legal liability then pursuant to validity of insurance policy the insurer, Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the victims by indemnifying the employer. Existence of policy by the Appellant and risk covered under such policy is not in dispute. 16. In view of above factual details and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2000 ACJ 801 , the employer is liable to pay compensation and thereby Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner. 16. In view of above factual details and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2000 ACJ 801 , the employer is liable to pay compensation and thereby Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner. In such reported case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed claim petition when Rickshaw Driver was murdered by the passengers. In such reported case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that murder of a driver of a vehicle when he was on duty is to be treated as death arising on and out of employment and fasten the liability of owner of the vehicle and directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award by indemnifying the owner. 17. There are several other decisions which confirms that when workman can be considered to be on duty which may be simply referred by recordings its citations: - Parmpal Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2013(3) SCC 409 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kanshi Ram reported in 2006 ACJ 492 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shankutla reported in 2007 ACJ 1415 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rachna Devi reported in 2006 ACJ 784 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Devi reported in 2007 ACJ 1126 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Archna Rajan reported in 2001 ACJ 801 - Ranju Devi v. Pawan Kumar reported in 2004 ACJ 230 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ranvir Kaur reported in 2013 ACJ 2030 - Jiviben Chhana v. Shah Larsen Lakha reported in 1984 ACJ 383 - Union of India v. Shantaben reported in 1985 ACJ 818 18. Therefore, now, it is settled legal position that death of a driver when he was on duty by any means which can be termed as an accident and it would give cause to the claim for compensation under the W.C. Act which is to be paid by the owner and needs to be indemnified by the insurer if owner of the vehicle has insured such liability. It is undisputed fact that Appellant - Insurance Company has accepted statutory liability of the owner to indemnify the owner in case of his liability to pay compensation to his employee under the W.C. Act or to 3rd party in general law. 19. It is undisputed fact that Appellant - Insurance Company has accepted statutory liability of the owner to indemnify the owner in case of his liability to pay compensation to his employee under the W.C. Act or to 3rd party in general law. 19. Therefore, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned award so as to interfere with in this appeal. Hence, there is no substance in the appeal and the same stands dismissed. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court at the earliest.