JUDGMENT : 1. The present is an appeal by the Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. The challenge is to the award dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation-cum-Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No.184/E.C.Act/2006-Fatal. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs.4,92,650/-with interest @ 12% per annum. The liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company which had insured the Trailer(Truck) bearing registration No.CG10G1341 owned by respondent no.5. The deceased Beerbal Das Manikpuri, at the time of accident was aged around 35 years and he was basically a driver working with respondent no.5. It is said that in the course of his employment the respondent no.5 had directed the deceased to drop one of his vehicles i.e. Trailer (Truck) bearing registration No.CG10G1341 from Baloda Bazar to Raigarh. The deceased took the vehicle and is said to have dropped the same at the destination at Raigarh. Thereafter, while he was returning from work, enroute he did not feel well and immediately he was taken to a hospital near Baloda Bazar where he was declared dead. 2. It is pertinent at this juncture to note that the deceased was returning from Raigarh in a different vehicle unconnected with his employer neither was it owned by the employer. The said vehicle did not meet with any accident. It is a case where enroute the deceased fell unwell and he was taken to a hospital and by the time he was taken to the hospital he was declared dead. The postmortem report wore an observation that the cause of death seems to be excessive consumption of alcohol whereas there was also an observation made by the doctor who had conducted the postmortem that the death had occurred because of “electrolyte imbalance”. 3. The family members of the deceased i.e. wife and children filed the claim application before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation at Bilaspur where the case was registered as Case No.184/E.C.Act/2006-Fatal. The owner of the Truck which the deceased was assigned to be delivered at Raigarh and the Insurance Company of the said vehicle were made respondents before the Commissioner. 3. The family members of the deceased i.e. wife and children filed the claim application before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation at Bilaspur where the case was registered as Case No.184/E.C.Act/2006-Fatal. The owner of the Truck which the deceased was assigned to be delivered at Raigarh and the Insurance Company of the said vehicle were made respondents before the Commissioner. Learned Commissioner after examining all the evidences and documents which were brought on record finally vide impugned award dated 25.10.2016 allowed the application and held that the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.4,92,650/-with interest @ 12% per annum. The liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company which had covered the vehicle bearing registration No.CG10G1341 which the deceased had taken from Baloda Bazar and left at Raigarh. 4. While entertaining the appeal this Court had stayed the disbursement of the compensation awarded by the Court below. Subsequently, on 08.03.2017 two questions of law were framed which are as under: I) Whether there was no any relation between the deceased and R-5 under the provisions of Section 2(dd) and (e) of the Employee’s compensation Act, 1923? II) Whether the Court below erred in law in holding that the deceased died in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment as required under Section 4 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923? 5. It was the specific contention of the Insurance Company that the vehicle which they had insured had got nothing to do with the compensation as claimed for by the claimants. According to the counsel for the Insurance Company, they had insured the vehicle to the extent of the said vehicle if meets with an accident, under the said circumstances they would indemnify the owner of the said vehicle. Further that vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration No.CG10G1341 was not involved in any accident nor did the deceased die in the course of operating the said truck. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with the liability of indemnifying the respondent no.5 for the death of the deceased. It was the further contention of the counsel for Insurance Company that even otherwise the plain reading of the factual matrix of the claim, it would be evident that the claim case filed by the claimants was not one which could be entertained under the provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. It was the further contention of the counsel for Insurance Company that even otherwise the plain reading of the factual matrix of the claim, it would be evident that the claim case filed by the claimants was not one which could be entertained under the provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. The appellant took an objection as regards the ingredients required under Section 3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act enabling the claimants for compensation. 6. It was the contention of the appellant that the death of Beerbal Das Manikpuri was not from an accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. Therefore, the claim application under the provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act would not be sustainable. According to the counsel for appellant, the bare perusal of the pleadings and the claim of the claimants would by itself reflect that even if it is assumed that the deceased died in the course of his employment but the death did not arise, out of the nature of his employment or out of his employment. According to the appellant, it is a case where the deceased after dropping the vehicle that he had taken from Baloda Bazar at Raigarh was returning home sitting in a different vehicle owned and belonging to somebody else unassociated with respondent no.5. Moreover, it is also not the case where the deceased was driving the vehicle in which he was traveling or was operating any of the vehicles belonging to respondent no.5 at the time of his death. Therefore, according to the counsel for appellant, it can be safely concluded that the death did not arise out of his employment even if it was in the course of his employment. Thus, prayed for quashment of the impugned award. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, opposing the appeal submits that from the admitted facts which is revealed from the pleadings and the evidence is that, the deceased Beerbal Das Manikpuri had taken the vehicle belonging to respondent no.5 from Baloda Bazar to Raigarh. The employment of the deceased with respondent no.5 is not in dispute. The deceased was working as a driver also is not in dispute. The employment of the deceased with respondent no.5 is not in dispute. The deceased was working as a driver also is not in dispute. Therefore, according to the counsel for claimants, it is the stress that was caused in the course of the deceased taking the truck from Baloda Bazar to Raigarh that led to his getting unwell and late on to which he succumbed. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the Commissioner cannot be found fault with nor does it warrant interference. 8. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the record, undisputedly the deceased died while he was returning from Raigarh to Baloda Bazar. The deceased was not travelling in any of the vehicles owned by respondent no.5. The deceased also did not die of any road accident. Admittedly, from the evidence which has been brought on record it appears that while the deceased was travelling back from Raigarh to Baloda Bazar in a private vehicle unrelated to his employer, he fell unwell in the course of his travelling and he was rushed to the nearby hospital at Baloda Bazar where he was declared dead. 9. The Postmortem report and the observation of the doctor would reveal that it was not an accidental death. Neither is there any evidence to show that the cause of death arose because of the nature of employment that the deceased was involved. 10. It is at this juncture that the contents of Section 3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 is required to be perused and appreciated. For ready reference Section 3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act is reproduced hereinunder: 3. Employer’s liability for Compensation – (1) If personal injury is caused to [an employee] by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. 11. The plain reading of the aforesaid provision of law makes it evidently clear that what is required to make out a case under EC Act; The necessary ingredients as are envisaged in Section 3 have to be met for making out a case for compensation under the Employee’s compensation Act, 1923. The three requirements under Section 3 are: First of all there has to be an accident. Secondly, the injured or the deceased as the case may be must be an employee. The three requirements under Section 3 are: First of all there has to be an accident. Secondly, the injured or the deceased as the case may be must be an employee. Lastly, the accident must arise out of and in the course of his employment. In the absence of even one of the above mentioned three ingredients, the claim case is not sustainable. 12. In the instant case, by any stretch of imagination at best it could be a case where the deceased Beerbal Das Manikpuri was in the course of his employment as he was deputed by the respondent no.5 for delivering the vehicle from Baloda Bazar to Raigarh. The deceased herein after delivering the vehicle was returning home. Therefore, it may be brought within the ambit of being in the course of employment. However, there is no material whatsoever available on record to show that the cause of death of the deceased was firstly arising out of an accident and secondly out of the nature of his employer. In the absence of any such cogent material on record only on presumption that the death arose in the course of employment by itself would not be sufficient to make out a case under Section 3 of the Employee,s Compensation Act. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and another Vs. Francis De Costa and another, (1996) 6 SCC 1 , in paragraph-29 has held as under: “29. Although the facts of this case are quite dissimilar, the principles laid down in this case are instructive and should be borne in mind. 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 the course of employment. Int he facts of this case, we are of the view that the employee was unable to prove that the accident had any causal connection with the work he was doing at the factory and in any event, it was not suffered in the course of employment.” 14. This principle that has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court still holds good and has also been applied by this Court in recent past in many such appeals. Recently in the case of Satish Kochar Vs. This principle that has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court still holds good and has also been applied by this Court in recent past in many such appeals. Recently in the case of Satish Kochar Vs. Hind Energy and Coal Benefiation India P. Ltd in MAC No. 352/2015 decided on 29.08.2022, this Court relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Francis De Costa (supra) has reached to the conclusion that for making out a case under the Employee’s Compensation Act all the three ingredients that are required: firstly the accident has to be established, secondly it has to be established that the accident having arisen in the course of employment and lastly it should also arise out of the employment. 15. From the admitted factual matrix as narrated in the preceding paragraphs there is no material available to show any causal connection as regards the death of the deceased with the nature of employment that he was performing at the time of his death. 16. For the aforesaid reasons and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has also been followed by this High Court in a catena of decisions, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned award passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation is not sustainable. 17. Accordingly, the first substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative holding that there was a relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the respondent no.5 as per Section 2(dd) and (e) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. Likewise, the second substantial question of law also is answered in affirmative holding that the Court below did err in law in holding that the deceased died from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. 18. The impugned award thus requires to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed. The claim application as a result stands rejected. The appeal stands allowed. The amount which stands deposited with the Commissioner shall be refunded to the appellant forthwith.