with respondent No.1, however no documentary evidence to that efect has been fled. It appears from the documents which were before the learned Court that, respondent No.1 had no idea as to where the deceased had gone and with whom on the date of accident. The contents of the First Information Report which was lodged by the brother of the deceased, would show that, deceased went along with another person to meet his friend. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accident had occurred 'during the course of employment'. He relied on the decision in, Mackinnon Machenzie And Co. (P) Ltd. Versus Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak, reported in 1969 (2) Supreme Court Cases 607, wherein meaning of, “in the course of employment” and “arising out of employment”, have been explained. Further reliance has been placed on the decision in, Malikarjuna G. Hiremath Versus Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr., reported in (2009) 13 SCC 405, wherein the deceased was driving the vehicle on direction of insured, had gone to temple with passengers. He was then sitting on the steps of the pond in the temple. He slipped and fell into the water and died due to drowning. Under that circumstance, it was held that, there was no liability either on the insurer or the insured to pay compensation.
