JUDGMENT S.G. Shah, J. Heard learned advocate Ms.Aditi S. Raol for Ms.Vidhi Bhatt for appellant and learned advocate Mr.Hemal N. Shah for the respondent. Perused the record as well as record and proceedings. 2. The appellant herein is original opponent no.2 - Insurance Company of the vehicle in question which was owned by the respondent no.2. Respondents no.1 to 5 are original claimants before Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act at Amreli in Workman Case (Fatal) No.3 of 2013. By impugned judgment and award dated 08.07.2014, the Commissioner has while allowing such application awarded amount of Rs. 5,24,800/- as compensation to be paid by the appellant with 12% interest thereon from 12.03.2013 till its realization. Being aggrieved by such award, the appellant has preferred this appeal contending that the nature of the incident where victim Kanubhai Mansukhbhai Jalaiya died, cannot be considered as accident arising out of and/or during the course of his employment with the opponent no.6 - employer, and therefore, claimants are not entitled to compensation either under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and thereby, award of Commissioner directing the appellant to indemnify the respondent no.6 - owner of the vehicle and employer of the deceased victim is unwarranted and needs to be quashed and set aside. 3. So far as factual details are concerned, it is an undisputed fact that the victim of the incident namely, Kanubhai Mansukhabhai Jalaiya was serving as a driver of dumper truck No.GJ - 14 W - 1241 owned by respondent no.6 herein namely Shivom Construction Pvt. Ltd. It is also undisputed fact that on 12.02.2013, the deceased - victim had taken the truck at village Bhukhariya for loading it with gravels from one Bhavani Industries. It is also an undisputed fact that respondent no.6 is a Private Limited Company having a Government Contract and deals in work of constructing roads and there was a contract between the respondent no.6 and Bhavani Industries for supplying gravels for roads and therefore, whenever the gravel was required, it was brought in dumper truck. Deceased victim had gone as driver in such a dumper truck to the site of Bhavani Industries for loading gravels with labourers and then, to carry them at the construction site. Deceased victim had gone as driver in such a dumper truck to the site of Bhavani Industries for loading gravels with labourers and then, to carry them at the construction site. It is also undisputed fact that on 12.02.2013 when the truck was loaded with gravels at Bhavani Industries, deceased victim was waiting outside the office of such Bhavani Industries for collecting the weight receipt. At such place and time work of blasting stones was carried out but deceased was not knowing about such blast and because of such sudden blast, one huge stone had blown to the place where the deceased was sitting and dashed with the pillar and then hit the head of deceased which resulted into serious injury to the deceased victim on head which resulted into his death. 4. Therefore, legal heirs of the deceased victim had prayed for compensation under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 because as widow and minor of the truck driver, they have no choice but to opt best option available to them for getting compensation at the earliest and without any hazels or technicalities. Therefore, when it is clear and certain that victim was on duty as a driver when he was injured while waiting for collecting receipt of goods loaded in his truck at the place from-where truck was loaded and at that time for some unknown reason, because of blast in the place from where he has to load truck with gravels stones hit on his head which resulted into his death, by all means it is the incident of accident arising out and during course of employment. However, when deceased - victim was serving as a driver of truck and when insurance company has accepted its liability to indemnify the owner of the truck against legal liability both under the M.V. Act as well as under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, most probably, the appellant - insurance company has misguided itself with terminology used under M.V. Act wherein right to claim compensation arises because of incident of accident arising out of use of motor vehicle. Therefore, in the present case, it is argued by learned advocate for the appellant that in any case, it cannot be said that vehicle was in use, because it is admitted position that at the time of incident vehicle was stationery and not in a movement. Therefore, in the present case, it is argued by learned advocate for the appellant that in any case, it cannot be said that vehicle was in use, because it is admitted position that at the time of incident vehicle was stationery and not in a movement. Therefore, though arguments seem to be attractive to exonerate the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation, it cannot be ignored that we are dealing with claim preferred under Workmen Compensation Act and not under Motor Vehicles Act. Thereby, there is a vast difference for right to claim compensation in both the statue. For claiming compensation under M.V. Act there must be injury either bodily or to the property in incident arising out of use of vehicle. Whereas, under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, since, workmen may be at different place and not only with vehicles, terminology used with for giving rights to pay compensation are to the effect that compensation can be claimed when incident is arising out of and in the course of employment. 5. Therefore, so far as factual details of present case is concerned, it is quite, clear and certain that deceased victim was on duty from point of starting to collect gravels till such loaded goods i.e. gravels are unloaded at the required place and even thereafter, till he shifts vehicle from such place. Therefore, by all means when victim was injured by some external force but at the time when he was on duty as a driver of the truck and waiting for collecting receipts of weight for goods loaded in truck, it can certainly be said that injuries caused to him by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. There are catena of decisions of several Courts which confirms that the word " accident for case arising out and in the course of employment" cannot be interpreted in the narrow campas so as to exclude several such cases were practically, employee was in fact on his duty though he may not be doing actual work as per his job profile, in the instance case driver of the vehicle. Thereby, it cannot be said that liability of owner of vehicle to pay compensation for injury sustained by his driver would arise only and only if driver is actually driving vehicle. Thereby, it cannot be said that liability of owner of vehicle to pay compensation for injury sustained by his driver would arise only and only if driver is actually driving vehicle. By all means, when driver of vehicle is on duty which starts if not from his house when he move to join the duty even atleast from point when he has taken charge of vehicle till he stepped down form such duty after returning the vehicle at the control of his employer. Thereby, after taking charge of vehicle when driver is moving with the vehicle he was certainly on duty and any incident arising during such period can certainly be termed as accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. 6. For the purpose several decisions are relevant which are listed herein as under:- (1) In the case between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Geetha and Others, (2010) ACJ 1904, (2) In the case between New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Jayalakshmi Latha and Ors., (2013) ACJ 655, (3) In the case between Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak, (1969) ACJ 422 (SC), (4) In the case between New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Ranvir Kaur and Ors., (2013) ACJ 2030, (5) In the case between Jiviben Chana and Ors. V/s. Shah Larsan Lakha, (1984) ACJ 383, (6) In the case between National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Padmavathy and Anr., (2013) ACJ 1272, (7) In the case between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Jasmina Khatun and Ors., (2014) ACJ 142, (8) In the case between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Anita Devi and Ors., (2012) ACJ 2331, (9) In the case between Union of India and Anr. V/s. Shantaben and Ors., (1985) ACJ 818. 7. However, there is no need to discuss all such judgments in detail when it is settled legal position that person is deemed to be on duty when he starts from joining his duty till he return back to his home after completing duty or atleast in any case it is not restricted for actual work to be carried out on duty. Thereby, whenever, any employee has received any injury during period of his employment except for some specific reason considering the factual details of the incident, for all purpose employee is to be treated as on duty and any accidental injury during such period would certainly be considered as injury by incident arising out of and in course of employment. 8. Reading all above decisions makes it clear that insurance company cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay compensation in such cases because even in cases where driver of vehicle was either murdered or looted or when they were attacked by mob but when received injuries when they are on duty, insurance company is held responsible and liable to pay compensation. 9. Though legal position is quite clear as aforesaid the appellant insurance company is relying upon the following decisions, however, considering the facts and circumstances emerging from the record on such decisions such citations would not rescue the appellant from its liability to pay compensation. (1) Mamtaz Bi Bapusab Nadaf and Others V/s. United India Insurance Company and Others, (2010) 10 SCC 536 wherein with reference to Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when vehicle was not in operation at the time of accident and when it was not involved in the accident and when there was no proximity or direct connection with the death of the workmen with the vehicle, the insurance company may not be liable to pay compensation to the appellant. However, factual details is quite clear in cited cases in as much as victim was driver of the vehicle but there were laborers engaged in loadings and uploading maize from tractor- trailer and when it is to be unloaded from tractor at an underground storage, labourers had climbed the grocery pit in order to clean an underground storage and while cleaning they fell into the grocery pit, where they were suffocated and died due to aspyxia. Therefore, factual details are quite different in cited case in as much as deceased labourer were doing work for loading and unloading maize for tractor, whereas cleaning under-ground storage was not work related to loading and unloading of truck i.e. their duty and therefore, it can be said that in such incident was not arising out of and in the course of their employment. Therefore, only because of Supreme Court has used word that since vehicle was not in operation and was not involved in the accident and thereby, there was no proximity or direct connection with the death of the workmen with the vehicle, such facts cannot be applied to all cases without considering the factual details. Therefore, such judgment would not help the appellants. (2) The appellants are also relying upon in the case of Malikaarjuna G. Hiremath V/s. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) ACJ 721, wherein also Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when driver of the truck had went to the pond for taking bath at a pit and when he has slipped and drowned, it cannot be considered that death was arising out of and in course of employment and thereby, insurance company may not be held liable. Thereby, here also factual details are quite different and clear in as much as victim in cited case was not doing or connected with any activity which are connected with his duty because he had carried passenger from one place to another place in goods vehicles and such place being temple, driver has selected to take bath at the pond near temple where he slipped and drowned and therefore, it cannot be said that incident was arising in course of and out of employment. 10. As against that respondent claimant has relied upon decision in the case of Param Pal Singh V/s. National Insurance Company and another, (2013) 3 SCC 409 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed should be construed as falling within the definition of an "accident" and in the event of such "untoward" "unexpected" event resulting in a personal injury caused to the workman in the course of his employment in connection with the trade and business of his employer, the same would be governed by the provisions of Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Factual details is quite clear in such cited case when driver of truck has parked the truck on side of road but immediately died thereafter, because of grave strain and stress. In such factual details also Hon'ble Court has held that it is accident arising out of and in the course of employment though driver has parked vehicle and sitting/sleeping inside of the vehicle. 11. In such factual details also Hon'ble Court has held that it is accident arising out of and in the course of employment though driver has parked vehicle and sitting/sleeping inside of the vehicle. 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. 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. 12. So far as factual aspect is concerned, it is contended by the Appellant that in-fact the charge-sheet 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. 13. 13. 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. 14. 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: United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Kanshi Ram, (2006) ACJ 492 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shankutla, (2007) ACJ 1415 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rachna Devi, (2006) ACJ 784 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Devi, (2007) ACJ 1126 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Archna Rajan, (2001) ACJ 801 Ranju Devi v. Pawan Kumar, (2004) ACJ 230 15. In view of facts and circumstances, I do not find any substance in the appeal so as to disturb the reasoned order passed by Commissioner awarding compensation in favour of legal heirs of deceased victim. Therefore, appeal stands dismissed.