The main legal point established is the direct nexus between the death of the deceased and the injuries sustained during the course of employment, leading to the confirmation of the insurer's liability to pay the compensation amount.

This appeal is filed by the insurer under Section 30(1) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the legality and correctness of judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Sub-Division-1, Hubli, in No. WCA/F.117/1997, dated 30-11-2004.

2. The brief facts of the case is that initially deceased Abraham Philip Parsha filed claim petition before the W.C. Commissioner, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him during the course and out of employment. During the pendency of said claim petition Abraham Philip Parsha died and hence his L.Rs came on record. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was working as a cleaner under respondent 4 in the lorry/truck bearing No. MEW 4536, respondents 2 and 3 has taken some contract work of construction of bridge to river and therefore hired the vehicle in question. That on 19-2-1996 at about 5.30 p.m. during the course of employment while unloading the materials like cement, iron, etc., from the vehicle in question near the work place at Tatti Halla, the bridge under construction collapsed and the deceased sustained grievous injuries, therefore he filed claim petition before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, but he died on 27-9-2000 during the pendency of claim petition, therefore his L.Rs were brought on record. A case in Cr. No. 22 of 1996 is also registered under Sections 288 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the respondent 2. The Commissioner for Workmens Compensation after recording the evidence of both the• parties and after hearing Counsel for the parties, passed judgment and award-directing the appellant herein to pay compensation of Rs. 1,73,465/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 30 days after the date of death i.e., 27-12-2000 till deposit. Hence this appeal.

3. Heard the arguments for the learned Counsel for the appellant and respondents and perused the records, the only substantial questions of law- involved in this appeal is:

(a) Whether the findings of the Commissioner that the death of late Abraham Philip Parsha was on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident is justified?

(b) Whether there exist any nexus between the death and the injury sustained by the deceased?

(c) Whether there is any nexus between the employment and death of the deceased?

(d) Whether the provisions of Section 147(1)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are applicable for consideration? and

(e) Whether the Commissioner is justified in awarding compensation and fastening the liability on the appellant?

4. It is argued by the Counsel for the appellant that the injuries sustained by late Abraham Philip Parsha was not due to involvement of the vehicle as he fell down from the bridge not due to the negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle therefore the liability fastened on the insurer is totally incorrect, perverse and the deceased has not sustained injuries when the vehicle was in motion, vehicle was stationed for unloading purpose, therefore the liability fastened on it, is liable to be set aside. Further, it is argued that the respondents 2 and 3 who had undertaken construction of the bridge near the scene of accident, for which the insurer is not liable. The liability was only on the part of respondents 2 and 3 who are principle employers, therefore it is prayed that the liability fastened on the appellant/insurer is incorrect and illegal. Hence prays for allowing the appeal.

5. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the L.Rs of respondent 1 submitted that under Section 3 of the W.C. Act, employer is liable to pay compensation to the employee in respect of injury or death of a workmen met with an accident, arising out of and during the course of employment. In the instant case deceased Abraham-respondent 1 was working under the injured and he fell down near the unloading spot, therefore it is argued that it should be construed that he sustained injuries or death in the course of and arising out of employment, m