The accident must have a causal connection with the employment and arise out of it. The court may infer essential elements of the claim if the facts proved justify the inference.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the insurer. According to Mr. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration: (1) Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain the claim when the death of Shivanna had not been caused due to an accident which had occurred during the course and out of the employment? (2) Whether the Commissioner was justified in supplanting the word accident to entertain the claim petition when the petition itself had mentioned it as an incident? (3) Whether Commissioner was justified in ignoring the contents of the F. I. R. and mahazar which had clearly shown that cause of death was not an accident and it was a suicide?

( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Workmen's compensation Commissioner, Davangere in Case No. WCA. CR. 141 of 2000 dated 30. 3. 2002. In this appeal, Mr. See- tharama Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised various interesting points and a multi-corner attack is also made against the claim of compensation. The appeal was heard at great length. Since various important points are raised and with a view to appreciate the merit of the present appeal and challenge it, it is necessary to set out the relevant material facts. Respondents herein who were claimants before the Commissioner are the parents, brothers and sister of deceased Shivanna. The claim petition would disclose that on 13. 10. 2000 at about 8. 30 a. m. the deceased shivanna who was working as operator with respondent No. 8 in this appeal was found dead in a well. The said well is situated in the premises of the factory and the said incident/accident arose out of and in the course of employment resulting in the death of said Shivanna. The age of the deceased was 22 years at the relevant point of time when he met a premature death. He was working as operator in the premises of the respondent No. 8. He had been to work on 11. 10. 2000 and had informed the family members that he would be working late on 11. 10. 2000 and 12. 10. 2000 and would return only after completion of the work. It appears the body of said Shivanna was found in the well which was noticed by some of the workers on 13. 10. 2000 and immediately thereafter a complaint was lodged and a case was registered in UDR no. 96 of 2000. According to the claimants as the said Shivanna died during the course of the employment, they laid the present claim petition claiming compensation of rs. 5,00,000. They, inter alia, stated that the deceased was the only earning member of the family and in view of his untimely death the claimants have become destitute as they were wholly dependent on his income for their livelihood. Claimant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were minors and they were being looked after by the deceased brother.

( 3 ) IN pursuance of the notice issued, the insurer as well as the insured entered appearance and filed their objections to the claim petition. The statement of objections filed by the employer discloses that the deceased was indeed working for them as operator and admitted the allegation that his body was found on 13. 10. 2000 at about 8. 30 a. m. in the well which was situated in the factory premises. They further admitted that the incident had occurred arising out of and in the course of the employment resulting in his death. They further denied that the deceased was the only sole bread earner of the family and, inter alia, contended that in the event the Commissioner were to hold that the deceased died during the course of the employment and out of the employment since the factory and its workers were insured with the respondent no. 2, i. e. , the appellant, it was the bounden duty of the insurer to indemnify them. They further made a statement that an amount of Rs. 20,000 was paid in accordance with the Companies Rules and Regulations and denied that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000 per month. The insurer objected to t