1. The husband of respondent No.1, by name K. Venkata Reddy was employed as a Driver on an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 11 T8335, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with the appellant. On 05th June 1996, when he was proceeding from Santoshnagar to L.B. Nagar Cross Roads in the auto, two persons, by name Narahari and Muthyalu, who were travelling in the auto, attacked and stabbed Venkat Reddy when the auto reached Bairamalguda Village. While undergoing treatment at Kamineni Hospital, he did. Crime No.280 of 1996 was registered. Stating that the deceased was aged 28 years and was being paid Rs.1,500 per month as salary, respondent No.1 filed W.C. Case No.149 of 1996 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District, Circle-II, Hyderabad (For short ‘the Commissioner’). A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. Respondent No.2, remained ex parte. The appellant alone contested the matter. It was pleaded that it is not liable to pay any compensation, since the death of the deceased was not on account of any accident. Other grounds were also urged.

2. Through order, dated 7th April 2000, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.1,58,929/-as compensation. The same is challenged in this appeal filled under section 30 of the Workmen’s compensation Act.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. The appellant does not dispute the relationship of employer and employee between respondent No.2 and the deceased and the fact that the deceased died while driving the auto rickshaw. The deceased was killed while driving the auto rickshaw. The only question urged by it is that it is not liable to pay the compensation, since the death did not occur on account of an accident.

5. It is true that Section 3, of the Act places obligation on the employer and the insurer to pay the compensation for the injuries or death caused to the workman in the course of employment in an accident. However, the fact that compensation can be awarded even where the death or other disability occurs otherwise than through accident, is evident from other sub-sections of Section 3 of the Act itself.

6. What becomes material for determination of a claim presented under the Act is the occurrence of injury or death in the course of employment. Though the accident may be one of the causes, it cannot be said that if injury or death occurs otherwise than through accident, but in the course of employment, compensation cannot be awarded. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Philo (1996 (2) ACJ 849), Kerala High court has taken the view that even when the driver of a vehicle is murdered while on duty, the obligation to pay compensation would arise for the owner and the insurer. The Commissioner has arrivedat proper conclusion and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal.

7. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.