IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINIAL. A.O. No. 310 OF 2002 (DAO 279 of 1997) United India Insurance Company Ltd ...Appellant Vs. Ram Singh others ……….Respondents. Mr. K.K. Sah, learned counsel for the appellant. None is present on behalf of the respondents. Dated: 22-04-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 25-3-1997, rendered by Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Regional Dy. Labour Commissioner, U.P. Dehradun (hereinafter referred as the Commissioner) in WCA No. 15/1995. 2- Perusal of record reveals that Durga Prasad was employed as driver on Vikram bearing registration No. U.P. 07-B-9910, owned by Opposite Party Rajesh. He was getting Rs. 1500/- per month as salary. On 17-6- 1995 while Durga Prasad was playing the Vikram some person fired gun shot on Durga Prasad, due to which he died. The deceased was 22 years of age. The said Vikram was insured with United Insurance Company. The claimants, being legal heirs of the deceased preferred petition before the Commissioner for compensation. 3- The owner of the Vikram filed objection before the learned Commissioner and admitted this fact that the deceased Durga Prasad was employed as driver on the offending Vikram and the Vikram was insured with United Insurance Company. In replication the owner has alleged different version that the deceased was driving the Viskram on rent. 4- The Opposite Party/Insurance Company also filed his written statement and denied the allegations made in the petition. It also alleged that the deceased was not employed as workman on the offending Vikram, therefore, his legal heirs are not entitled to get compensation. However, the Insurance Company has admitted the insurance of the Vikram with it. 5- The learned Commissioner framed relevant points on the basis of pleadings of parties. Therefore, the claimants produced oral as well as documentary evidence. The owner of the offending Vikram also filed documentary evidence, but did not adduce any oral evidence. The insurer also did not adduce any evidence. 6- The learned Commissioner after considering the evince on record and having heard learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition for a sum of Rs. 87,980/- as compensation payable by United Insurance Company. The Commissioner directed the insurance company to deposit the amount within 30 days, failing which recovery certificate be issued, on which collection charges@ 10% shall be payable. 7- Feeling aggrieved the Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 8- Heard Sri K.K. Shah, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 9- Learned counsel has raised the only point before me that the deceased was not employed as workman on the offending Vikram as he was plying the same on rent. He also submitted that the deceased has died due to gunshot injury having no nexus with his employment, therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. 10- Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any force in this appeal. The claim of the claimants is that the deceased was employed on the offending Vikram as driver. This fact has been alleged on oath by Ram Singh, father of the deceased. This witness also deposed that at the time of his death the deceased was on his duty. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the owner but on the point of employment of the deceased as driver on the offending Vkiram has not been disputed by putting question to this witness. From the side of insurance company also the employment of the deceased has not been challenged in the cross examination of this witness. The Opposite Party/owner of the Vikram in the W.S. has admitted the employment of the deceased on his Vikrma but lateron by filing replication has taken different plea that the deceased was playing the Viskram on rent. It seems that the later plea was taken in order to shirk from the liability of payment of compensation. Here it may also he noted that the opposite Parties did not adduce any kind of evidence which may show that actually the deceased was not employed as driver on the Vikarm and he was plying the same on rent. In the F.I.R. it ha been mentioned that the deceased was plying the Vikram at the time of his death and he was stopped by some miscreants. At the deceased come out of the tempo and he was slapped by Yogesh and his companion Surendra fired country made pistol at the deceased due to which he died. The above facts clearly establish that the deceased at the time of the death was plying the Vikram and he had died during the course of his employment. In my opinion the learned commissioner has recorded a categorical finding pertaining to the employment of the deceased on the offending Vikram as a driver and his death during the course of his employment. 11- In view of above discussion, the appeal lacks merit is liable to be dismissed. 12- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 25-3-1997 is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP