JUDGMENT : VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the impugned Order dated 19.10.2004 in W.C. No. 55 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Cuddapah (hereinafter be referred to as ‘Commissioner’). 2. The appellant herein was the O.P. No. 2, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were the applicants Nos. 1 to 4 and the respondent No. 5 was the O.P. No. 1 before the Commissioner. For the sake of convenience and understanding, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Commissioner. Case of the Applicant 3. Applicant No. 1 is wife, Applicant Nos., 2 and 3 are the daughters and the Applicant No. 4 is the son of deceased-Katti Ratnamaiah. Applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are minors, represented by their natural guardian/mother/Applicant No. 1. The deceased was a driver of auto bearing No. AP 04 U 6159 which belongs to the O.P. No. 1. On 05.04.2004, one Devi Reddy Janardhan Reddy and Nimakayala Chinna Reddaiah, known to the deceased, boarded the auto of the deceased at kamalapuram. 4. After reaching Kamalapuram, they requested the deceased to go to Narpala Village of Ananthapur District and reached by 08.00 pm. The deceased borrowed some amount from Janardhan Reddy long prior to the incident. The said Janardhan Reddy in order to execute his plan i.e. to kill the deceased, took him to Narpala Village and offered a brandy bottle after mixing sleeping pills. The deceased, after consuming the brandhy, fell unconscious. Later, the said Janardhan Reddy and Chinna Reddaiah killed the deceased and escaped along with the auto for their wrongful gain. 5. The deceased was aged 29 years and used to get Rs.4000/- per month as wages at the time of the accident. The murder of the deceased took place during the course and out of his employment under O.P. No. 1. The auto was insured with O.P. No. 2 vide Policy No. 050904/31/03/00137 valid from 10.04.2003 to 09.04.2004. As the Opposite Parties did not cooperate for payment of compensation, the applicants approached the learned Commissioner by filing a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. Version of Opposite Parties 6. O.P. No. 1 was not served with notice. A paper publication was given on 07.10.2004 in Praja Sakthi Daily Newspaper of Cuddapah District. As the Opposite Parties did not cooperate for payment of compensation, the applicants approached the learned Commissioner by filing a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. Version of Opposite Parties 6. O.P. No. 1 was not served with notice. A paper publication was given on 07.10.2004 in Praja Sakthi Daily Newspaper of Cuddapah District. In spite of the publication, O.P. No. 1 failed to appear before the learned Commissioner and as such, he was set ex-parte. 7. O.P. No. 2 being Insurance Company entered its appearance through an Advocate and filed Counter Affidavit denying the material averments made in the petition inter alia contending that the O.P. No. 1 violated the conditions of the policy as the driver exceeded 60 Km from his residence, that the deceased was in drunken condition in the course of employment. O.P. No. 1 is alone to pay compensation and therefore, it cannot indemnify the risk of O.P. No. 1. Therefore, O.P. No. 2 prayed for dismissal of the claim against them. Proceedings before the Commissioner 8. Basing on rival pleadings of both parties, the learned Commissioner framed the following issues: (i) Whether the deceased was a workmen as per the provisions of workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting into death? (ii) What was the age of deceased at the time of accident? (iii) What were the wages paid to the deceased at the time of accident death? (iv) What is the quantum of compensation payable to the applicants? (v) Who are liable to pay the compensation to the applicants? 9. In order to prove the contention of the applicants, the applicant No. 1, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined as AW-1. The Assistant Administrative Officer of O.P. No. 2-Sri R. Pratap Reddy, was examined as RW-1. EXs. A.1 to A.6 were the documents marked. 10. Having heard the submissions on both sides and on appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Commissioner held that the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to deposit an amount of Rs.3,33,092/- with 12% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of payment. EXs. A.1 to A.6 were the documents marked. 10. Having heard the submissions on both sides and on appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Commissioner held that the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to deposit an amount of Rs.3,33,092/- with 12% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of payment. The learned Commissioner further directed the Opposite Parties to deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which, to pay penalty under Section 4 (A) 3 of the Act, 1923. 11. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order impugned, O.P. No. 2 preferred the present appeal raising the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the Order of the learned Commissioner is tenable under law when there is no nexus between the accident and the employment? (b) Whether learned Commissioner is correct in fixing the minimum wages as per G.O.Ms. No. 81, which is meant for public motor transport when an auto is a private motor transport which falls under G.O.Ms. No. 31? (c) Whether the learned Commissioner is correct in holding that the death of the deceased was in connection with the employment though it is established that the deceased borrowed the amount from Janardhan Reddy, who killed the deceased with an intention to murder him and that the death caused due to personal enmity? (d) Whether the learned Commissioner ought to have dismissed the claim against the Insurance Company since the driver consumed Alcohol and took the auto beyond the permitted limits? (e) Whether the learned Commissioner is correct in calculating the loss of income? Arguments Advanced at the Bar 12. Learned counsel for Appellant would submit that the deceased/the driver of the auto, was hired by his known persons i.e. Janardhan Reddy and Chinna Reddaiah. AW-1 categorically deposed that the deceased borrowed some amount from Janardhan Reddy and he was taken to Narpala by Janardhan Reddy and Chinna Reddaiah with an intention to kill him. In order to execute their plan, they intoxicated the deceased with brandhy, that contained sleeping pills, and later he was murdered. In the light of the evidence of AW-1, there is no casual connection between the accident and the employment. The driver consumed the liquor. Because of personal enmity, he was beaten to death. In order to execute their plan, they intoxicated the deceased with brandhy, that contained sleeping pills, and later he was murdered. In the light of the evidence of AW-1, there is no casual connection between the accident and the employment. The driver consumed the liquor. Because of personal enmity, he was beaten to death. The policy issued by O.P. No. 2 does not cover the risk since the accident not occurred out of the employment and it is a clear case of murder. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 13. Learned counsel for respondents/applicants would submit that the deceased used to work as a driver to the auto of O.P. No. 1. He was killed in the course of his employment. As insurance coverage to the auto was in force at the time of accident, O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation. 14. Learned counsel representing appellant/Insurance Company would submit that unless the phrases “in the course of the employment” and “arising out of the employment” are established, the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability. Determination by the Court 15. Section 3 of the Act provides that if a personal injury is caused to workmen by accident arising out of and in course of his employment, the employer shall liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions. Vide catena of decisions, ingredients essential to succeed in a claim may be summed up as follows: (a) Existence of employee-employer relationship. (b) Accident to arise out of and in the course of employment. (c) Causal connection between the work, accident, and the injury. (d) Policy issued by the insurer covers the risks of the workman in question. 16. In the present case, the wife of the deceased as AW-1 testified that her husband was an auto driver by profession; on 05.04.2004 he left the house to drive the auto and he did not return to the house. Later, they came to know that one Janardhan Reddy and Chinna Reddaiah engaged the auto of her husband to go to Kamalapuram. After reaching over there, they requested the deceased to go to Narpala of Ananthpur District. Her husband borrowed some amount from Janardhan Reddy long back. Later, they came to know that one Janardhan Reddy and Chinna Reddaiah engaged the auto of her husband to go to Kamalapuram. After reaching over there, they requested the deceased to go to Narpala of Ananthpur District. Her husband borrowed some amount from Janardhan Reddy long back. The said Janardhan Reddy planned to kill her husband and took him to Narpala Village in order to execute his plan and mixed sleeping pills into the brandhy bottle and offered to her husband. After consuming the brandhy, deceased fell unconscious and thereafter the said Janardhan Reddy and Chinna Reddaiah killed her husband and left with auto.The deceased was aged about 35 years. According to her, the death of her husband arose in the course of the employment. In support of her case, she filed Exs. A.1 to A.6. Ex.A.1 would show that the matter is reported forthwith to the Cuddapah Police and a case in Cr. No. 75 of 2004 was registered. Ex.A.5 is the Photo copy of the Driving License of the deceased. There is no dispute about issuing the policy to the auto vide Ex.A.4 as well as the death certificate of the deceased under EX.A.3. 17. In the cross examination of AW-1, it was elicited that the alleged accused were residing beside her house since one year prior to the incident. The deceased died due to mixing of sleeping tables in the liquor given by the co-passengers on the date of incident. After consuming the liquor, he was beaten to death. Though she denied that the deceased violated the permit issued by the RTA, the record clearly shows that deceased took the auto to Narpala, which is a far distance from the place of O.P. No. 1. The evidence of AW-1 is vivid on the point that her husband was murdered by Janardhan Reddy and Chinna Reddaiah in execution of a preplan to kill him. 18. RW-1 filed Ex.B.1-RTA Permit. RW-1 denied that the accused instigated the deceased to have liquor, but the deceased himself did not take the drink. Though RW-1 is not an eye witness to the occurrence, suggestions which were given to RW-1 would show that at the instigation of Janardhan Reddy and Chinna Reddaiah, the deceased took Alcohol. The fact remains that the deceased was killed by assailants. The death occurred beyond the permitted limits of the vehicle. Though RW-1 is not an eye witness to the occurrence, suggestions which were given to RW-1 would show that at the instigation of Janardhan Reddy and Chinna Reddaiah, the deceased took Alcohol. The fact remains that the deceased was killed by assailants. The death occurred beyond the permitted limits of the vehicle. The evidence further establishes that there was enmity between the Janardhan Reddy and the deceased as the deceased borrowed some amount long back from Janardhan Reddy. 19. In the impugned order, while granting compensation, the learned Commissioner relied upon the judgments in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Veena Sethi and another, 2002 ACJ 843 and United Indian Insurance Company Limited v. Philo, 1996 ACJ 849 . 20. Learned Counsel for the Appellant placed reliance on United India Insurance Company v. Sudini Indira and Others, 2004 ACJ 2031 where in course of two truck drivers in a quarrel over the cost of chicken meal, the deceased workman got hit on his head resulting his death on the spot. On a claim raised by his family members, the learned Commissioner recorded a finding that the incident happened during the course of employment and in view of the policy, both Opposite Parties were held to be liable to pay the compensation individually and also jointly. This order was carried in appeal by the Insurance Company before the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The Court having analysed the law on the point reitrated the position in such cases, at Para 11 held as follows: “In the present case also, the incident which had happened is a private quarrel between the two drivers and the resultant death happened due to the said incident and on admitted facts I am of the view that there is no nexus or connection with the duties of the workman and the private quarrel between the two drivers which had resulted in the death of the deceased-workman. It is not doubt true that it is really unfortunate that there is a loss of life due to the aforesaid incident, but the question is whether even in such cases the Insurance Company can be fastened with liability or not. It is not doubt true that it is really unfortunate that there is a loss of life due to the aforesaid incident, but the question is whether even in such cases the Insurance Company can be fastened with liability or not. In view of the binding decision of the Apex Court referred to in Regional Director, ESI Corporation (supra), I am of the considered view that inasmuch as this private quarrel between two drivers which had resulted in the death of one of the drivers, will not fall within the meaning of the phrase “in the course of employment”, the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability and in view of the aforesaid binding decision of the three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court referred Regional Director, ESI Corporation (supra), I am left with no other option except to allow the Appeal.” (Emphasis supplied) 21. Similarly, in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh and others, 2017 SCC Online Del 9853 the Hon’ble Delhi High Court while reiterating the noble object of the Act held at Para 10 as follows: “10. Whether the murder of the deceased, Manoj Kumar was an “accident” arising out of and during the course of his employment? The law on this issue is well settled by the Supreme Court in Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2000 ACJ 801 (SC). The Supreme Court drew distinction between a “murder” which is not an accident and a “murder” which is an accident. The Supreme Court laid down the test that if the dominant intention of the felonious act is to kill any particular person, then such killing is not accidental murder but a murder simpliciter. However, if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act, then such murder is an accidental murder. Para 10 of the judgment is relevant and is reproduced hereunder: “10. The question, therefore is, can a murder be an accident in any given case? There is no doubt that “murder” as it is understood, in the common parlance is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act normally have a motive against the victim for such killing. But there are also instances where murder can be by accident on a given set of facts. There is no doubt that “murder” as it is understood, in the common parlance is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act normally have a motive against the victim for such killing. But there are also instances where murder can be by accident on a given set of facts. The difference between a “murder” which is not an accident and a “murder” which is an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. In our opinion, if the dominant intention of the Act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simpliciter, while if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder.” (Emphasis supplied) 22. In the light of the discussion referred to supra and in the backdrop of the fatual position, this Court is of the view that in the present case, there is no casual connection between the incident and to the employment. The applicants failed to establish that the accident arose out of the employment. The incident occurred because of previous enmity between the deceased and Janardhan Reddy in connection with the amount borrowed by the deceased. A crime is also registered in the same lines. Such being the case, the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants that the incident occurred during the course and out of the employment has no legs to stand. 23. Further more, the deceased was made to have alcohol and he followed the directions of the alleged accused and after consuming liquor, he was beaten to death. It is purely outside the scope of the employment. There is no nexus between the incident and the employment. The learned Commissioner erred in granting compensation to the applicants. However, if any amount is already deposited and withdrawn by the applicants being the wife and children of the deceased, the same need not be recovered but whatever amount is laying with the learned Commissioner, the Appellant herein is at liberty to take back. 24. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. In the circumstances of the case, both parties shall bear their own costs. 25. Pending Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.