K. Vinod Chandran, J

1. The insurer is in appeal raising substantial questions of law regarding; (1) whether the incident in question amounts to an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, as stipulated in Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923? (2) is the insurer liable to indemnify the insured on a claim under the WC Act, by virtue of a policy issued under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, especially so on an accident which did not arise directly out of the use of the motor vehicle? (3) fixation of monthly income at Rs.3,600/-, and (4) the legality of granting interest from the date of accident. The accident in the case led to the death of the driver of a goods vehicle by drowning.

2. The wife, daughter and parents of the deceased workman applied for compensation. The deceased was the driver of a lorry owned by the insured. The lorry having a national permit was carrying sugar from Mysore to Tirur. Thereafter, it came to Oorganttiri in Malappuram District for transporting a load of sand to Ooty. The lorry was parked near a ghat on the banks of Pavanna river to load the sand. While loading, the driver, allegedly, went to the river for a bath and accidentally slipped into the river, resulting in his death by drowning. The Ariyakode police had registered a crime for unnatural death as Crime No.22 of 2002 in connection with that incident and the cleaner of the lorry narrated the incident in so many words as is evident from the FIR in that case. The applicants claimed that the deceased drew monthly income of Rs.6000/-and sought lump sum payment of Rs.4,22,000/- as compensation under the WC Act.

3. The owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte. The insurer challenged the employee-employer relationship and pleaded that the death by drowning while bathing cannot at all be attributed to be one during the course of employment or out of the employment.

4. The wife of the deceased was examined before the Commissioner and a copy of the F.I.R in the Crime was produced, with the statement of the cleaner who accompanied the driver. Exts.A2 to A5 are the copies of inquest report; postmortem certificate; driving licence; and, legal heirs certificate.

5. The counsel for the appellant/insurer argued that in a near similar situation, the Division Bench had, in Oriental Insurance Company v. Thankappan (2005(3)KLT 480), held that the accident fell within the notional extension of employment, however that; the Full Bench on a reference has expressly found against the said view in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. K.V Joseph and another(2007(2)KHC 698). Relying on that, the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer argued for the position that the drowning of the driver cannot be treated as one in the course of employment or arising out of employment.

6. In the Full Bench decision (supra), the facts relevant were that the driver of the vehicle, while getting down to unload the goods, sustained a dog bite and in the clamour to escape, fell down and sustained injuries. The Full Bench, though did not agree with the Division Bench with respect to the drowning of a conductor, on the facts of the case dealt with by the Full Bench, held that the claimant therein having been engaged in the vehicle, had stepped out of the vehicle during the course of his employment and the subsequent accident was one directly arising out of the employment. The Full Bench considered the tests with respect to "notional extension", "casual connection" and "reasonably incidental" and held that the claim in that case was established on facts of that case. It was also made explicit that ultimately, everything turns on the facts and circumstances of each case. We specifically notice that in Thankappan's case, the Division Bench though dealing with a case of drowning of an employee was concerned with an accident that occurred while the employee took bath in preparation of the commencement of the duties and responsibilities in connectio