Court No. 2 In the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital. Appeal From Order No. 108 of 2002. National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Officer 5/222, Canal Road, Tikonia, Haldwani,District-Nainital. …………Opp.party NO.2/Appellant Versus (1)Srimati Basanti Devi W/o late Sri Khim Singh R/o village- Jarna, Post Kalika, Ranikhet, District-Almora, …………Claimant/Respondent (2)Mohan Singh Bisht –Owner of Truck No. UP01-2659, R/o Mahendra Singh Bhawan, Jaruri Bazar, Ranikhet, District-Almora. …………..Opp.party No.1/Respondent. Sri Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the appellant. Ms.Seema Sirohi, learned counsel for the claimant. Dated: 21st Aug., 2004. Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. This appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Company against the order dated 27.03.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation /Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kumaon Region, Haldwani, District-Nainital, (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) in Workmen Compensation Case nos. 1 of 2001. 2- Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Khim Singh-husband of claimant-respondent No.1 was employed as driver under the employment of Opp.party No.1 in Truck No. UP 01-2659. On 10.3.2000, when the said truck of Opp.party was carrying goods and going from Haldwani to Ranikhet, near H.M.T. factory, Ranibagh, Khim Singh who was driving the truck felt pain on his chest. He stopped the vehicle on the side of the road. He was taken to Base Hospital, Haldwani, where after some he died. The deceased was 32 years of age at the time of accident his monthly pay was Rs. 2500/-. The aforesaid truck was insured with the Opp.party No.2-National Insurance Company. The wife of the deceased has filed the claim petition for compensation against the opposite parties under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 3. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner after recording the evidence awarded the claim petition of of the applicant/claimant for a total sum of Rs. 2,48,692.00 including the amount of interest against the Opp.party No.2-National Insurance Company. Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company has come up in this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant challenged the impugned order only on the ground that deceased was not having a renewed valid driving licence on the date of accident and secondly that the death of the deceased driver due to heart attack cannot be said to be a death during the course of employment, hence the learned Commissioner was wrong in holding that the deceased comes under the purview of workman and died during the course of employment. We have gone through the material on record and perused the impugned judgment. We find no force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the insurance Company, because the learned Commissioner has recorded his finding on the point and has held that the deceased driver of holding a valid driving licence at the time of his death. Secondly, it has been proved from the evidence of applicant/claimant that the deceased died during the course of employment and this fact has not been rebutted by the opposite parties by adducing strong evidence. Hence the learned Commissioner has rightly held that the deceased died during the course of employment. However, nothing has been shown to us on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company so as to warrant any interference with the findings arrived at by the learned Commissioner in the case under appeal. We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal has no force and deserves dismissal. 5. The appeal is dismissed. The order impugned in this appeal is affirmed. The amount of compensation deposited in the appeal is transmitted to the concerned court. No order as to costs. (B.S.Verma, J.) (P.C.Verma, J.) P.Singh