1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.2193 OF 2008 United India Insurance Co. Ltd...Appellant Branch Office at 3rd floor, Doctor House, Halar road, Valsad, Gujarat State V/s. 1. Nandkumari Ajaykumar Tiwari C/o. Mr.Kuldeepkumar Shivbalak Tiwari R/o.F/5, Krishna Apartment, Opp.Civil Court, Anand Nagar, Tokarkhada, Silvassa. 2. M/s.Apar Industries Limited Kudacha Village, ..Respondents U.T.of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. 3. M/s.Veetech Consultants Plot No.12, Vrindavan Society Silvassa. Mr.S.S.Vidyarthi i/b.Mr.S.M.Vidyarthi, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.T.R.Yadav h/f.Mr.S.S.Pathak, Advocate, for the respondents CORAM : C. L. PANGARKAR, J. DATE : 18TH JANUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT . This is an appeal by the original opponent No.3  United India Insurance Company Limited under Section 30 of the Workmen 2 compensation Act, 1923. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows. Respondent No.1 is the widow of one Ajaykumar Tiwari, who was employed by respondent No.2 through respondent No.3. He was employed as Labour Contractor and was earning Rs.260/- per day. On 2nd May, 2007 the deceased Ajaykumar Tiwari left the factory after duty hours and was going back home on motor cycle as a pillion rider. One Pandit Atmaram Patil was driving the motor cycle. It is alleged that the truck came from behind and gave dash to the motor cycle as a result of which Ajaykumar Tiwari suffered injuries and died of those injuries. An application was, therefore, moved before the workmens compensation Commissioner for award of compensation. 2. The said application was opposed by the Insurance Company. It is contended that 3 since the accident did not take place while discharging the duty and the accident did not arise out of and in course of employment the claimant was not at all entitled to compensation. 3. The learned Commissioner upon recording the evidence found that the employee was workman and he died while discharging the duty and therefore, his widow was entitled to compensation. He awarded compensation of Rs. 4,15,960/- and saddled the liability on the Insurance Company. Feeling aggrieved the Insurance Company preferred this Appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The only ground on which the Award of the Commissioner is challenged, is that the deceased did not die of the injuries caused by 4 accident arising out of and in course of his employment. The learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that the facts as narrated in the Judgment of the Trial Court would themselves be enough to conclude that the deceased did not die of the accident arising out of and in course of his employment. The facts as stated in the Judgment of the Lower Court show that the deceased was going home on a motor cycle after duty hours and the motor cycle was hit by the truck. Only those employees can seek compensation, who died of accident arising out of and in course of their employment. The accident must therefore, occur when the workman was actually discharging his duty or was on duty in the factory premises. After an employee finishes his job and comes out of the place of employment then in no case, it could be said that he died during course of his employment. There has to be some nexus between the injuries suffered and work 5 discharged by the deceased employee. In the case at hand the deceased after duty hours was going home when he was hit by the truck. The Supreme Court dealing with similar situation has observed in the matter of Employees' State Insurance Corporation V. Francis De Costa, reported in 1996 ACJ 1281 as under :- 27.We are of the view that in the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the injury suffered by the workman one kilometre away from the factory while he was on his way to the factory was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. 29.Although the facts of this case are quite dissimilar, the principles laid down in this case are instructive and should be borne in mind. In order to succeed, it has to be proved by the employee that (1) there was an accident, (2) the accident had a casual connection with the employment and (3) the accident must have been suffered in course of employment. In the facts of this case, we are of the view that the employee was unable to prove that the accident had any casual connection with the work he was doing at the factory and in any event, it was not suffered in the course of employment. 6 6. Applying this ratio it has to be said that in the instant case the deceased had not died during course of his employment and therefore, the claimant  his widow is not entitled to compensation under the Workmen compensation Act, 1923. 7. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The Judgment and Order passed by the Workmen compensation Commissioner is set aside and the application filed by the claimant is dismissed. (C.L.PANGARKAR, J.)