Abdul Gafoor, J.

The writ petition is by the 1st respondent in the appeal filed by the insurer. The contentions raised in the appeal by the insurer is that admittedly by the parties, the death of the workman occurred due to drowning. This cannot have any casual connection with his employment as a conductor in the bus insured with the appellant. So the death did not occur during the course of employment and the respondent are not entitled to the compensation in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which shall have to be paid by the appellant on the strength of the insurance policy in force. In support of this contention the appellant relies on the decision of the apex Court in E.S.I. Corporation vs. Francis De Costa (1996 (2) KLT 799) and a decision of the Division Bench of this court reported in Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. v. Jerro (2000 (1) KLT 643.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the first respondent who has filed writ petition No.15973/05, that the facts proved before the workmen compensation commissioner disclosed that the bus in which the deceased was a conductor had to start its trip at 3.30 a.m. in the night. Therefore apart from himself the driver a