JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal arises, from, the verdict recorded by the learned Commissioner, while, his 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-in-interest/claimants, of, deceased Sanjay alias Sanju, compensation amount comprised in a sum of Rs. 4,07,700/- along with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 2.8.2007, till, occurrence of deposit, of, whole of the compensation amount including interest, in, the Court, and also quantified the apt costs, besides stanting apt indemnificatory liability (ies) thereof stood fastened, upon, the Reliance General Insurance Company, appellant herein. He also directed qua the aforesaid quantified compensation amount being equally shared, by, all the claimants. 2. The Insurance company-appellant herein, standing aggrieved by the rendition, recorded by the learned Commissioner, hence, concert (s) to assail it, by preferring an appeal therefrom, before this Court. 3. This Court admits the appeal, instituted herebefore by the Insurance Company-appellants herein, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the Whether the learned Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act below was justified in coming to conclusion that the deceased died during the course of employment in the absence of any cogent evidence showing exact cause of death? 4. Uncontrovertedly, the aforesaid Sanjay @ Sanju, died during his employment under his apt employer. The employer was proceeded against ex-parte, hence, obviously he omitted, to, contest the factum of his engaging the aforesaid, upon vehicle bearing No. HR-46B-1151, as a driver, thereon (a) besides, he did not controvert the trite factum of, the, deceased, at the relevant time, hence performing the relevant callings of his avocation, upon, the aforesaid vehicle in his employed capacity, as a driver thereon. The effects thereof, are, qua all the uncontroverted factum aforesaid, rather acquiring credibility. 5. The effects thereof, are, qua all the uncontroverted factum aforesaid, rather acquiring credibility. 5. However, the learned counsel appearing, for, the Insurance Company-appellant herein, has, contended with vigor, (a) that the signification, carried, by the hereafter apt underlined 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”, (b) hence being limited besides standing trammeled, only, within the domain of a stricto sensu, fortuitous event or a fortuitous mishap, (c) whereas the ill event, if any, of rather the deceased employee, hence being purportedly murdered, 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, (d) inasmuch as, the true signification or scope besides parlance borne by the aforesaid statutory coinage, (e) is, of its encompassing, befalment upon a workman all fortuitous events or mishaps, conspicuously, “if all” evidently arise out of, and, occur in the course, of, the apt employment. The aforesaid broad ascription vis-a-vis the signification borne, by, the relevant statutory coinage, hence, 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 rather “dying”, “unless” there exists evidently no casual connection inter-se the fortuitous event or mishap, vis-a-vis, thereat the apt callings, of, the apt avocation, hence being performed by the deceased workman, (f) also when its befalment, upon, the workman concerned, evidently, neither arise (s) from nor occurs in the course of his performing employment, under, his employer, thereupon too, the apt idemnifictory liability being amenable qua its fastening upon the employer, of, the deceased workman. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits, qua, the effects, of, the apt employer, not, controverting the aforestated trite factum, (g) rather merely spurs an inference of the claimants proving qua the deceased, their precessor-in-interest, performing the apt employment, incontemporanity, vis-a-vis the occurrence of his demise, also engenders merely an inference qua incontemporanity thereof, his performing the apt callings, of, his avocation, upon, the relevant vehicle, (h) yet, the rearing, of, the aforesaid inference, not per-se, establishing the factum, qua, rather with his being merely found dead in the relevant vehicle, also begetting any concomitant inference, qua, there hence existing, any, imperative nexus, inter-se, his thereat performing, the, callings of his employment, vis-a-vis, his demise, (i) whereas rather hence existence of evidence qua his demise being ascribable, vis-a-vis, his thereat evidently performing, the, callings of the apt avocation, obviously was hence imperative (i) besides the ill-event of his demise also imperatively enjoined adduction of potent evidence, qua, it, arising from the nature, condition, of, obligations, of, the apt callings, of, the relevant avocation, (j) contrarily with the post-mortem report, evidently, omitting to with specificity hence ascribe the reason, for, the demise of the deceased workman, thereupon, the, befitting therefrom conclusion, is, qua the aforestated imperative condition, as, borne in paras 12 and 13, of , the judgment reported in a case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sheela Bai Jain and another, 2007 ACJ 1126 , not begetting any satiation, hence he contends qua the impugned verdict rather warranting reversal. 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....”” 7. 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....”” 7. However, even if there is no direct evidence, existing on record, vis-a-vis, the precise cause, vis-a-vis, the demise of the apt predecessor-in-interest, of the claimants, nor when hence evidence surges forth qua, the existence, of, an imperative nexus, inter-se, the demise of the deceased, vis-a-vis, its occurrence, arising from or taking place, hence during the course of the deceased workman rather performing the apt callings, of, his avocation, (a) yet, want, of, the aforesaid evidence, cannot ex-facie, coax any, conclusion from this Court, qua, hence with the apt evidence, for, begetting satiation of the imperative principle, for, validly fastening, the, apt idemnificatory liability, upon, the Insurance Company, hence being grossly amiss, (b) thereupon it being befitting to record any conclusion, qua, the demise, of, the apt predecessor-in-interest of the claimants, not occurring, during, the course of his performing, his apt employment under his apt employer, (c) rather an inevitable conclusion is garnered, qua the demise of the deceased workman, being ascribable, vis-a-vis, his incontemporanity thereof, rather performing, the, apt callings of his avocation, and, concomitant thereof sequel, is, qua his demise arising from, and, also occurring during the course of his performing, the, apt callings of his avocation, (d) prominently given lack of best befitting evidence qua the exact precise cause, of, demise of the deceased workman, (f) whereas, its, adduction rather constituted, the, best evidence, for, making an apt conclusion qua hence existence, of, apt nexus inter-se his demise, vis-a-vis, his thereat hence performing, the, callings of his avocation, (g) contrarily lack, of, the aforesaid evidence, rather, constrains a conclusion qua hence with imminent uncertainty surrounding, the, exact cause of his demise, uncertainty whereof stands expostulated, in, the apt post-mortem report, (i) thereupon, when his successors' interest, cannot, be excepted to adduce, the, best evidence in respect thereto, rather when the employer of the deceased workman, held, the best evidence, who however rather chose to be proceeded against an ex-parte, (ii) thereupon it is to be concluded, qua even when, the insurer, has merely depended upon, the uncertain imprecise pronouncements, borne, in the apt post-mortem report, vis-a-vis, the exact cause, of, demise of the deceased employee for his hence making the aforesaid submissions, (iii) thereupon, it cannot be firmly concluded qua the insurer rather efficaciously proving, of, the apt exculpatory onus, qua the imperative nexus inter-se, the, demise of the deceased workman, vis-a-vis, his thereat performing, the, apt callings rather standing satisfactorily discharged, nor, thereupon it can be concluded, qua, the apt idemnificatory liability, being not, fastenable upon it. Conspicuously, with the deceased at the relevant time being the sole occupant of the relevant vehicle, hence also disabling emanation of proof, qua the exact cause of his demise. 8. Furthermore, the ensuing effect, of, the aforestated lack of best evidence, for hence making, a, precise inference, qua, the, existence of the apt nexus, inter-se the demise, of, the deceased workman rather arising from, and, occurring during the course of his performing, the, apt callings of his avocation, under his employment, is, qua hence rather the claimants being entitled, to, the hereinafter expostulated legal stance, borne in a judgment in a case reported AIR 1968 Calcutta 129 P.E. Davis and co. vs. Kesto Bouth, the relevant portion whereof stand extracted hereinafter: “….The principle underlying all these cases is that an act which is reasonable or necessary, having regard to all the circumstances, though not one which is part of the workman's original duty may be within the sphere of his employment. What is necessary is that there should be a casual connection between the accident and the employment and further that the cause should be a proximate cause and not a very remote cause. But at the same time it has been held repeatedly that if a workman in the course of his employment has to be in a particular place and by reason of his being in that particular place has to face a situation in which he receives injuries that fact itself would be a sufficient casual connection between the employment and accident.” (b) wherein it stands propounded qua, upon, the workman concerned, being enjoined, to, during the course of his employment be in a particular place, and, by reason of his being in a particular place, his facing a situation wherein, he has received injuries, thereupon ipso-facto, the, apt causal nexus rather hence existing inter-se, the, accident and his employment, (c) the reason for garnering, the aforesaid conclusion, arises from the factum of the post-mortem report, tentatively making an ascription qua the demise of the deceased, spurring, from 'asphyxia’ (d) the sequel whereof, is, qua it being permissible for this Court to conclude, qua the purportedly fatal asphyxia entailed upon the deceased workman, being a sequel of noxious gases, hence emanating from the apt vehicle, (d) conspicuously when the best evidence, for, negating the aforesaid inference remains unadduced, even by the insurer. Furthermore, the effect of the insurer hence omitting to adduce, the, best scientific evidence for dispelling, the afore reared inferences, is qua, this Court being constrained, to, conclude qua their existing a causal nexus, inter-se, the demise of the deceased workman, vis-a-vis, his thereat hence performing the apt callings of his avocation. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 8. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. Impugned verdict is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.