This C.M.A is preferred against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Asst. Commissioner of Labour-IV in W.C.No.11 of 2006 dated 24-01-2008.

2. The counsel for the appellant mainly urged that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto and that the death was not during the employment of the deceased. He further urged that the deceased was not having valid driving license at the time of the accident. In support of his arguments he placed reliance on a decision reported in Rashida Haroon Kupurade Vs Div.Manager, Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd and others A.I.R.2010 S.C.1006 wherein the Supreme Court held that the employer is not liable to pay compensation when there is no nexus between death and accidents. He also relied on decision reported in Malikarjuna G.Hiremath Vs Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., and another (2009) 13 SCC 405

3. The counsel appearing for the respondent while submitting his arguments drawn the attention of the Court to the observation of the lower Court wherein it has clearly held that the death was during the employment of the deceased and therefore the Insurance Company should pay the compensation.

4. Now the point for consideration is, whether the order of the lower Court is sustainable?

5. As already stated, it is the contention of the counsel for the respondent that the deceased had a valid driving license at the time of accident. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased was having driving license and the same is marked as Ex.A.6. A perusal of Ex.A.6 shows that the deceased was given driving license to drive the vehicles. Against the evidence of P.W.1, none were examined on behalf of the Insurance Company to rebut the evidence urging that the deceased had no valid driving license. However, in view of the documentary evidence-Ex.A.6 and non-examination of any witness to falsify the document-Ex.A.6, it remains unrebutted that the deceased was having valid driving license.

6. The next point for consideration is, whether the deceased died while he was in employment and the accident was due to the negligence of the opposite party?

7. During course of evidence, the applicants filed Exs.A.1 to A.11. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of the F.I.R; Ex.A.2 is the charge sheet; Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of inquest report; and Ex.A.4 is the certified copy of post- mortem examination report.

8. On perusal of Exs.A.1 and A.2, the police, after due investigation, filed the charge sheet against the driver of the opposite vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

9. The evidence of P.W.1 is with regard to the involvement of the deceased who was driver of the auto bearing No.AP 9V 8790 and also the involvement of the driver of the seven seater auto bearing No.AP 24U 7512. The deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to his injuries in Gandhi Hospital on the same day of accident while undergoing treatment.

10. As per Ex.A.1-F.I.R and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that the deceased, while he was on duty as driver of Auto bearing No.AP 9V 8790, on 23-09-2005 proceeding to Nizampet cross roads at 12.00 noon. When the said auto reached near Ashwini hospital, Kukatpally, another auto bearing No.AP 24U 7512 came in the opposite direction, suddenly dashed against the auto of the deceased. When the deceased questioned the driver of the opposite auto the reason for driving the vehicle so rashly and negligently, there was a quarrel between them. In that quarrel the deceased fell down on the road and sustained head injury. Thereafter succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.

11. The main contention of the counsel for appellant is that the quarrel was not in the course of employment and it is a private quarrel between the deceased and the opposite party and it cannot be said that the injuries sustained by the deceased while he was in the course of employment. Exs.A.1 and A.2 are the crucial documents, which clearly reveals that th