Krishna S. Dixit, J.

This appeal by the insurer challenges the judgment and order dated 21.09.2010 made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Udupi, allowing WCA/CR-57/FC/2007 whereby a compensation of Rs. 4,52,760/- has been awarded with a statutory interest of 12% per annum from one month after the accident.

2. The brief facts of the case stated are:

(a) One Mr. Satish who was working as a cleaner-cum-loader in the lorry bearing Registration No. KA-44-0400; on 20.10.2007, after the lorry was loaded with the Manganese Ore, he went to have bath in a nearby reservoir, wherein he died of drowning. The LRs of the deceased had filed the claim petition that was stoutly opposed by the insurer.

(b) To prove the claim, the first claimant being the father of the deceased was examined as PW1 and in his evidence, seven documents came to be marked as per Exhibits P1 to P7 which inter-alia comprised of the FIR, Post Mortem Report and Salary Certificate of the deceased. One Mr. Abdul Nabi Sa, who was the driver of the said lorry was examined as PW2. From the opposite side, none was examined although the Insurance Policy was got marked as per Exhibit R1.

(c) The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, after adverting to the pleadings of the parties and after appreciating the evidentiary material on record, has entered the impugned and award which are put in challenge by the insurer by framing the following substantial questions of law at Paragraph No.8 of the appeal memo:

"(a) Whether the Commissioner was justified in holding that deceased Sathish suffered in the course of and arising out of employment involving lorry bearing No.KA-44/0400?

(b) Whether the Commissioner was justified in holding that the death of cleaner by drowning is in the course of and arising out of employment?

(c) Whether the Commissioner was justified in fastening liability on the appellant/insurer being insurer of lorry and the said vehicle is no way responsible for the death of Sathish?

(d) Whether the Commissioner was justified in awarding compensation of Rs. 4,52,760/- with 12% interest by fixing Rs. 4,000/- as income of deceased without any proof?

(e) Whether the Commissioner was justified in holding claimants/Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are also entitled to interest @ 12% from one month after the accident?"

3. The learned counsel for the insurer submits that no liability could have been fastened on the insurer inasmuch as the death in question did not occur due to an accident arising out of and in the course of employment as required under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 as it then was. He further submits that even if it is assumed to be an accident, the insurer cannot be held liable unless the said accident did not happen when the vehicle in question was put to use. On the basis of these submissions he presses into service the substantial questions of law at (a) to (c) above. In support of his submission, he banks upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjuna G Hiremath v. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and another, (2009) ACJ 721.

4. The learned counsel for the claimants per contra contends that the survey of law relating to employer's liability for the injury or death suffered by the persons "out of and in the course of employment" has been evolved steadily, precedent by precedent; the very concept of "accident occurring out of and in the course of employment" has been enormously broadened and that some amount of causal connection between the accident and the employment levies the liability on the employer, even when a rough common sense tells otherwise. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of the appeal relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Daya Kishan Joshi and another v. Dynemech Systems Pvt. Ltd., (2017) AIR SC 4134 and the judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Maruthi and another, (2018) ACJ 268.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-ins