A.K. Goswami, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for short, the Act, against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2010 passed the learned Commissioner, Kamrup (M) in W.C. Case No. 77 of 2009, whereby the learned Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs.3,41,380/- as compensation in respect of death of Narayan Nath in a vehicular accident. By the said order, the appellant was directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a month from the date of receipt of the order failing which it was also directed that the Insurance Company will be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. after one month of passing of the order. The case of the claimant is that her husband was employed by one Shri Deep Sarma as a driver of his vehicle No. AS-01/ X-9295 (Tata Indica). On 20.01.2007, the husband of the claimant was going towards Lanka in the said vehicle along with his employer and when the employer got down at Lanka for marketing, her husband was in the car. At that point of time, some miscreants took away the vehicle with the driver in the car and he remained traceless till 25.11.2007 and on 25.11.2007, his dead body was found floating in Kolong River under Roha Police Station. Stating that her husband used to earn a sum of Rs.4,000/- p.m as salary and that he was 40 years old at the time of his death, the claim petition was filed for compensation on the basis that her husband was killed by the miscreants during the course of and arising out of his employment.

2. In the written statement, the employer supported the case of the claimant including on the point of payment of salary and the incident leading to the death of Narayan Nath. In the written statement filed by the Insurance Company, claim was denied.

3. The claimant had adduced the evidence of the claimant and she had also exhibited certain documents in support of her claim. There was no evidence from the side of Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal on consideration of the materials on record, held that the deceased was aged about 45 years and accordingly, granted compensation of Rs.3,41,380/- which included an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards funeral cost.

4. I have heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel for the appellant for admission of the appeal. His sole contention is that the death of the deceased did not occur in the course of and arising out of employment.

5. In order to attract the charging provisions contained in Section 3 of Act, it is necessary that:

(i) an injury must be caused to a workman;

(ii) such injury must have been caused by an accident;

(iii) it arose out of or in the course of his employment.

6. In General Manager, B.E.S.T undertaking, Bombay Vs. Mrs. Agnes, reported in AIR 1964 SC 193, the basic facts were to the effect that one Nanu Raman, who was a bus driver employed by the Corporation, after finishing his work and leaving the bus in a depot, boarded another bus to go to his residence. The said bus met with an accident as a result of which Nanu Raman expired. On a claim petition filed under the provision of the Act, a sum of Rs.3,500/- was granted as compensation by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation holding that the accident had arisen "out of and in the course of his employment." The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company in the High Court of Bombay was dismissed and in the appeal before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court by a majority judgment stated as follows:

30. Under s. 3(1) of the Act the injury must be caused to the workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The question, when does an employment begin and when does it cease, depends upon the facts of each case. But the Courts have agreed that the employment does not necessarily end when the "down tool" signal is given or when the workman leaves the actual workshop where he is working. There is a notional extension of both the entry and exit by time and space. The scope of