N THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 549 of 2006 United India Insurance Company Ltd. .. Appellant. Vs. Smt. Devaki Devi and another .. Respondents. Sri Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the appellant. Sri M.S. Bisht holding brief for Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for the respondent/claimant. Dated: June 04, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, has been preferred against the judgment and award 31-7-2006, passed by Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation/ Deputy Labour Commissioner, Haldwani, Nainital in WCC No. 19 of 2003. 2- Brief facts of the case-giving rise to this appeal are that deceased Dhan Singh was employed as driver on Truck No. U.P. 02-6514. On 24.3.1999 after performing his duties, he parked the truck at the residence of the owner. When he got down from the truck, he was fainted and started vomiting. The owner of the truck brought him to his house and on the same day at about 9 P.M. he has died. The deceased at the time of his death was 45 years of age and was getting Rs. 2,500/- as salary. Therefore, the claimant, widow of the deceased filed claim petition before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation for compensation. 3- The Opposite Party No.1/ owner of the truck filed his written statement and admitted this fact that the deceased was employed as driver in his truck, but denied 2 his death during the course of the employment. He also alleged that the truck was insured with United India Insurance Company. He admitted that he used to pay salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the deceased. 4- The United India Insurance Company also filed written statement and denied the facts mentioned in the petition. The insurance company also denied the death of the deceased in the course of his employment. The salary claimed by the claimant was also disputed. 5- Parties adduced evidence in support of their case. The learned Commissioner after hearing counsel for the parties and going through the record awarded a sum of Rs. 1,75,614/- as compensation and also awarded a sum of Rs. 96,000/- as interest @ 8% per annum from 24.3.99 to 21.1.2006, the total being Rs. 2,71,614/- payable by United India Insurance Company. 6- Feeling aggrieved the United India Insurance Company has filed this appeal before this Court. 7- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the deceased had parked the truck at the residence of the owner and thereafter he came to his house and has died at his residence due to illness in which he fainted and vomited. The Commissioner wrongly appreciated the entire evidence on record as well as the pleadings and came to a wrong conclusion that the deceased died during the course of his employment. Learned counsel 3 therefore urged that the impugned judgment and award be quashed against the insurance company. 9- On the other hand learned counsel for the claimant/respondent opposed the submission advanced on behalf of the insurance company and submitted that as and when the deceased got down from the truck he was fainted and vomited there and when he was brought to his house he has died the same day after about two hours and the death has occurred during the course of employment. 10- In this appeal the only point for consideration arises that whether the death of deceased Dhan Singh has occurred during the course of his employment of not?. 11- It is admitted fact that on 24-3-1999 the workman Dhan Singh at about 7 P.M. after finishing the day’s work parked the truck at the residence of it’s owner. When the driver got down from the truck, he was fainted and started vomiting. He was brought to his house by the owner of the truck and about two hours he has died. Therefore, it is quite clear that the workman fell ill in the process of his work and ultimately died due to that ailment. The death of deceased on 24- 3-1999 itself by the ailment suffered by the workman has not been disputed. It is pertinent to mention here that the workman has suffered the ailment just after finishing his work. When he got down from the truck after parking it at the residence of the truck owner, he was fainted and started vomiting and died due to the said ailment. The Opposite Party has not adduced any cogent and reliable evidence to show that the deceased had died for some other reasons. It has not been alleged that the deceased 4 was suffering from some prior ailment. Therefore, the learned Workmen’ Compensation Commissioner was justified in holding that the death has occurred during the course of the employment and accordingly awarded compensation. 13- No other point has been raised on behalf of the appellant. 14- The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 31-7-2006 is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 5