An employer is not liable to pay compensation to a workman if the personal injury is caused to the workman by accident not arising out of and in the course of his employment.

1. - This misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'the 1923 Act') has been filed by the non-claimant the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Dholpur (hereinafter 'the non claimant Corporation') against the award dated 27.12.1993 passed by the Workmen' Compensation Commissioner, Bharatpur (hereinafter 'the Commissioner'), whereby the Commissioner has found the respondent No. 2-claimant Smt. Vimla Devi (hereinafter 'the claimant') entitled to compensation for a sum of Rs. 54,579/-. The non claimant Corporation has been directed to deposit the said amount of compensation awarded in the Court of Commissioner within sixty days of the award. The facts of the case are that Kishan Singh husband of the claimant was engaged as Driver with the Corporation at Dholpur. Kishan Singh was required by the appellant Corporation on 21.1.1990 to deliver bus RNP-208 from Dholpur to Roadways workshop Ajmer. Kishan Singh safely reached the Roadways workshop Ajmer on 21.1.1990 without any incident. He contacted the Junior Engineer and left the vehicle at the Ajmer workshop as directed. It however appears that after delivering the bus at the Ajmer workshop, Kishan Singh met with his friends and went out for a personal trip on a motor cycle. The motor cycle was involved in an accident near Gogal, Ajmer consequent to which Kishan Singh expired of the injuries sustained in the accident.

2. In these circumstances a claim petition was laid by Kishan Singh's widow-the claimant under the provisions of 1923 Act. On service, the claim petition was opposed by the non claimant Corporation. It was stated that the death of Kishan Singh had no causal connection with his employment as the driver with the RSRTC or even with the delivery of the bus by him from Dholpur to Ajmer and thus there was no ground for grant of compensation for his death caused in an accident when he was out on pleasure trip under the 1923 Act. It was emphasised that Kishan Singh was required in the course of his employment to deliver the bus from Dholpur to Ajmer, which he done without any untoward incident and subsequently if in the course of an outing with his friends he was injured in motor cycle accident and died as a result of injuries sustained therein, it could not occasion any liability on the non-claimant employer the Corporation.

3. The Commissioner however vide judgment dated 27.12.1993 proceeded to grant compensation for a sum of Rs. 54,579/- to the claimant-the widow of the deceased Kishan Singh and directed that in the event the amount of compensation so granted were not deposited with the Commissioner within sixty days of the award, it would carry interest. Hence this appeal.

4. Mr. Mukesh Verm, learned counsel for the appellant Corporation has submitted that the death of Kishan Singh in a motor cycle accident on 21.1.1990 was totally unconnected with his employment as Driver of the Corporation. It was submitted that the deceased Kishan Singh had completed his duty of delivering the bus from Dholpur to Ajmer and was free to return to his home at Dholpur. It appears that instead he had gone out with friends on a motor cycle which was involved in an accident. Kishan Singh had died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident. It was submitted that in the circumstances obtaining the death of deceased Kishan Singh could not even remotely said to have arisen out of and in the course of employment with the Corporation. Consequently the claimant was not entitled to any compensation therefor under the provisions of 1923 Act. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in case of Executive Engineer, 19th Division, RCP Bikaner v. Heera Ram, 1981 ACJ 368 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore, III, (2006) ACC 356 (SC). It has been submitted that in the admitted facts of the case and in the obtaining state of law there was no causal connec