The central legal point established in the judgment is that the word 'accident' in Section 3(1) of the Workmens Compensation Act encompasses unexpected and untoward events, including injuries not designed by the workman himself.

V.M.Jain, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the award dated 10.6.2004 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide which Rs. 4,07,000/- have been awarded as compensation to the claimants on account of death of Sohan Singh deceased during the course of his employment while working as a driver with Jagjot Singh respondent (owner of the vehicle and employer of the deceased).

2. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the record. In my opinion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

3. The claimants had field the claim petition under the Act seeking grant of compensation for the death of Sohan Singh deceased, who was employed as a driver with Jagjot Singh, respondent and had died in the course of his employment. Inasmuch as he was murdered during the way when he was going from Gurgaon to Patna alongwith the goods loaded in the truck driven by him. After considering the entire matter, the Commissioner under the Act found that the claimants were entitled to the compensation on account of death of Sohan Singh deceased during the course of his employment and that the owner (employer) and the Insurance Company, both were held liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants alongwith interest etc. Aggrieved against the same, appellant Insurance Company filed the present appeal in this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted before me that under Section 3 of the Act, the claimants would have been entitled to claim compensation on account of injuries received by Sohan Singh deceased (resulting in his death) in case the injuries were caused to him by way of accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. It was submitted that since Sohan Singh was admittedly murdered when he was driving the truck, it would not amount to accident and as such the claimants were not entitled to claim any compensation under the provisions of the Act.

5. However, I find not force in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company. It is no doubt true that under Section 3 of the Act the word used is "accident" arising out of and in the course of employment. However, the word "accident", in my opinion, would not mean an accident as understood in common parlance.

6. In General Superintendent Talcher Thermal Station v. Smt. Bijuli Naik, 1994 Labour Industrial Cases 1379 (Orissa), while considering the question regarding "accident" as used in Section 3(1) of the Act, it was held by the Orissa High Court as under:-

"The pre-conditions for attracting the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act are that death or injury must be caused to a workman; the said injury must have been caused by accident; and the accident must have arisen out of and in course of his employment. A casual connection between the employment and the injury caused by the accident must exist. If after looking at the entire facts, a fair inference can be drawn that the employment caused the injury, then the employer would be liable to pay the compensation. The liability under Section 3(1) of the Act would accrue, if it is established that an injury has been caused to a workman and the accident arose out of and in course of his employment, the expression "injury" has not been defined in the Act, but it is of wide import. The dictionary meaning as given in Oxford Dictionary is "wrongful action or treatment, harm, damage". "Personal injury" spoken of in Section 3(1) may lead to death or disablement or impairment of the powers of the body and mind in either of which event, the employer is liable to pay compensation if the conditions laid down in Section 3(1) of the Act are satisfied. This view was expressed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Mariambai w/o Adam Fakir v. Machinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd., A.I.R. 1968 Bom. 187: (1968 Lab.I.C. 629). "Occupational disea