ORDER :

1. This is an appeal preferred against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner, Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 Ajmer District Ajmer dated 28.03.2013 whereby the Commissioner has passed an award of an amount of Rs. 4,19,840/- alongwith the interest @ 12% p.a.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Insurance Company cannot be said to be liable for payment of compensation to an individual who cannot be said to have died out of an accident but has died 10 months later on account of some injuries which has not been proved to have caused by way of an accident. Learned counsel submits that Insurance Company does not in any manner challenge the employer-employee relationship but so far as deceased is concerned he was involved in smuggling drugs and was caught by the Police while driving the insured vehicle and was arrested on 03.06.2006 and remained in jail for 6 months. The claimants have set up a case that he died out of injuries which occurred on account of accident that occurred while he was being followed by the Police and was arrested. The injuries continued for which he underwent treatment and ultimately died after 10 months. Learned counsel submits that no proof relating to accident has been placed on record nor any documentary proof has been shown that the accident resulted in injuries caused to the deceased. In fact in cross-examination, the claimant herself states that she does not know whether the injuries were caused on account of accident or on account of being beaten up by the police or on account of having fallen while in Jail. Learned counsel submits that on account of the driver having committed an imprudent act, compensation ought not be awarded to him.

3. Learned counsel relies on the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Laxmanrao vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board in First Appeal No. 296/2013 decided on 20.01.2015 which relies on earlier judgment passed by the Supreme court in the case of Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak, 1969 ACJ 422. Learned counsel therefore submits that the Commissioner has failed to examine the case in the right perspective and has given perverse findings.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the question regarding the manner in which an accident may have occurred and in what manner the injuries were caused are pure question of fact. He relies on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Smt. Sujatha, AIR 2018 SC 5593.

5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

6. An FIR was registered by the Police under Section 8(15) of the NDPS Act and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act as against the deceased - Ajay Singh. The Police received the information of contraband material he carried in the Jeep bearing no. RJ 01 T 0744 and they attempted to stop the vehicle which was being driven by the accused - Ajay Singh who did not stop at the police barricade and also opened fire by a local pistol on the police. He was later on arrested under the aforesaid offences and remained in jail. There is no postmortem report and there is only information that he died on 15.04.2007. As to the incident which occurred on 03.06.2006, it is the only claimants who have placed documents of treatment of the deceased to submit that injuries were caused at the time when he was attempting to run away from the police barricade resulting in an accident of the vehicle.

7. Question arises whether such an act on the part of the driver of a vehicle would bring him within the ambit of the Employee's Compensation Act 1923 for the purpose of grant of compensation of having suffered injuries while on duty.

8. It would be apposite to quote the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as under:

“5. To come within the Act the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of em