JUDGMENT : A.M. Basheer Ahamed, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Award, dated 05.03.2012, made in W.C.No.135 of 2007, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichy. 2. The appellants herein, who is arrayed as the 2nd respondent in W.C.No.135 of 2007, on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichy, challenging the order, dated 05.03.2012, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, directing the appellant/2nd respondent to deposit Rs.4,05,861/-, by way of Demand Draft, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, failing which, the 2nd respondent was directed to deposit the above compensation amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of accident, till the date of deposit and also directed the 2nd respondent to pay the compensation at the first instance to the claimants and thereafter, recover the same from the 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle. 3. The first claimant is the father of the deceased Sathish; 2nd claimant is the wife of the first claimant; the 3rd claimant is the daughter of the first and 2nd claimants. The appellant herein is the Insurer of the vehicle, bearing Registration No.TN-51-B-9696, owned by the 1st respondent. The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claimants in W.C.No.135 of 2007, as the legal representatives of the deceased Sathish, who was said to be murdered while in the course of his employment, as driver of the said car, under the employment of the 4th respondent herein and such death arose out of his employment. The 4th respondent in this appeal and the 1st respondent in the claim petition was set ex-parte. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant/insurer is disputing the liability fixed by the Court below, on the following grounds:- (i). There must be employer and employee relationship between the victim Sathish and the owner of the vehicle. (ii). The alleged murder of the deceased driver Sathish did not take place during the course of his employment and also arising out of employment. (iii). There can be no inference that the vehicle was used for employment purpose and that the deceased was in the course of employment, at the time of accident. (iv). (ii). The alleged murder of the deceased driver Sathish did not take place during the course of his employment and also arising out of employment. (iii). There can be no inference that the vehicle was used for employment purpose and that the deceased was in the course of employment, at the time of accident. (iv). There is no nexus between the alleged murder of driver Sathish and employment and hence, the claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, in an accident not arising out of employment, cannot be maintained. 5. The counsel for the appellant, in support of his contentions, has relied the following Judgments :- (i) The Judgment of the Apex Court in Rashida Haroon Kupurade Vs. Div. Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. & Others, 2010 1 TLNJ 411 (Civil), wherein it has bee held that, “Compensation payable only if jury is caused to the workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment”; (ii) An yet another Judgment of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sorumai Gogoi & Others, (2008) 3 LW 34; and (iii) the Judgment of the Principal Bench of this Court in Pavayee and Another Vs. Assistant Engineer, Operations and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Manickampalayam and Others, (2009) 1 MadLJ 587, wherein it has been held that, 'to sustain the claim for compensation under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, it must be shown that the accident resulting in death of the workman, occurred in the course of and out of his employment.”. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants submitted that the impugned order was passed on perusing the evidence on record and also rightly fixing the liability upon the insurer to pay the compensation determined by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants relies the following decisions:- (i). The Judge of Delhi High Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Kanshi Ram and Others, (2006) ACJ 492; (ii) the Judgment of Principal Bench of this Court in G.Amsaveni Vs. V.Komala,2016 1 TNMAC 27; 7. Admittedly, the deceased was working as driver for the vehicle, bearing Registration No.TN-51-B-9696 on 14.08.2004 and that the 4th respondent herein is the owner of the said vehicle. The above vehicle was also insured with the appellant herein and the Insurance Police was in force on the date of alleged occurrence. V.Komala,2016 1 TNMAC 27; 7. Admittedly, the deceased was working as driver for the vehicle, bearing Registration No.TN-51-B-9696 on 14.08.2004 and that the 4th respondent herein is the owner of the said vehicle. The above vehicle was also insured with the appellant herein and the Insurance Police was in force on the date of alleged occurrence. As per Ex.R1/Insurance Policy, the period of Policy is from 30.10.2003 to 29.10.2004 for a private car vehicle, bearing Registration No.TN-51-B-9696. There is no evidence, except Ex.A1/FIR, registered on 19.08.2004, in Crime No.521 of 2004, on the basis of the written complaint given by the 4th respondent herein/vehicle owner, in which, the said Sathish was admitted as driver on 14.08.2004, under the 4th respondent herein, for the Qualis Car, bearing Registration No.TN-51-B-9696, by the claimants to show that the deceased Sathish was the 4th respondent herein. However, the 4th respondent himself has categorically admitted in Ex.A1/FIR that the deceased was working as driver under the employment of the 4th respondent, though the vehicle owner was set ex-parte. 8. It is further admitted that the said Sathish took the above vehicle on 14.08.2004 for his own use and thereafter, the said Sathish did not turn up. It is further stated in Ex.A2/Expert's Report for alteration of Sections submitted by the Velankanni Police Station that 6 persons staying in the Diana Lodge situated near the Velankanni Bus Stand took the car hire and thereafter did not return and one human skull was found in a garden of one Samidurai on 03.09.2004 and FIR was also registered in Crime No.251 of 2004, under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., Thirupanandal Police Station. The skull and bones were compared with the photo of Sathish on super imposition process, by the Forensic Science Department and was opined that the skull could have belonged to a male individual seen in the photograph and as per the order of this Court, dated 11.05.2005, in Crl.O.P.No.6570 of 2005, the charges were altered into Sections 379 and 302 IPC. 9. There is no evidence by both sides regarding the stage of the said criminal case, but it is not denied that the criminal case is still pending. 9. There is no evidence by both sides regarding the stage of the said criminal case, but it is not denied that the criminal case is still pending. The contents of Exs.A1 & A2, which are denied by the claimants, also proves the fact that the vehicle was taken by the driver Sathish on 14.08.2004, for his personal use from the vehicle owner and the said private car was used for hire by the said Sathish and thereafter, he did not turn up. The vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-51-B-9696 was insured as a private car and the same was used and utilized on hire purpose, which is also against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy/Ex.R1. 10. There is nothing on record to show that the alleged murder had occurred to the said Sathish in an accident arising out of or in the course of employment, though the said Sathish admittedly as the driver of the 4th respondent herein. If miscreants have taken away the driver along with the vehicle or has murdered him and it does not give rise to presumption that the death/murder had occurred arising out of or in the course of employment. Some evidence should have been adduced in that behalf. There is no material available in the case to infer that the deceased was under employment at that time of accident/murder. There is nothing to show that the deceased died arising out of and in the course of his employment. 11. To sustain the claim for compensation under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, it must be shown that the accident/murder of a Workman occurred in the course of and arising out of employment. There is no nexus between the alleged murder of Sathish and employment. Without any sufficient evidence by the claimants, it cannot be inferred that the said vehicle was used for employment, as directed by the 4th respondent herein, and the alleged murder was in the course of employment and arising out of the employment. The alleged murder of the said Satheesh took place outside the course of employment and not arising out of employment. The deceased Sathish may be murdered by some persons out of some personal motive and the alleged murder of the deceased driver has at all in the employment with the 4th respondent herein 12. The alleged murder of the said Satheesh took place outside the course of employment and not arising out of employment. The deceased Sathish may be murdered by some persons out of some personal motive and the alleged murder of the deceased driver has at all in the employment with the 4th respondent herein 12. The decisions relied on by the counsel for the respondents/claimants in the Judgment of Delhi High Court reported in [2006 ACJ 492] ; and the Judgment of this Court reported in [2016(1) TN MAC 27] are not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. 13. The claimants in this case failed to prove the alleged murder took place during the course of employment, under the direction of the vehicle owner and also arising out of the employment. The evidence adduced by the claimants itself is proved the fact that the deceased Sathish had taken the vehicle from his owner for his own use and thereafter, he did not turn up. On suspicion ground, the criminal case was registered and is pending for the offences under Sections 302 & 317 IPC., and the criminal case is also still pending. The claimants also failed to prove the nexus between the alleged murder of the deceased Sathish and also in the course of employment with the 4th respondent herein. 14. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow this appeal. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, by setting aside the findings given by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichy, in its order, dated 05.03.2012. The appellant/insurer is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy, on application. However, there shall be no order as to costs.