S.N. Satyanarayana, J.

The second respondent-insurer in WCA No. 81/2009 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bijapur, has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and award dated 15-4-2010 passed therein.

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that,-

Husband of claimant No. 1 and father of claimant No. 2 and son of claimant Nos.3 and 4 namely, Motilal alias Motiram Chavan who was working as driver in Tractor bearing registration No. MH-10-9475 belonging to respondent No.1 in the said proceeding met with an accident on 7-4-2009 at about 12.30. While he was driving the said vehicle towards District Primary Health Centre of Rathnagiri situated near Wandri, he stopped the vehicle for drinking water, during which time, a stone fell down on his head resulting in his death on the same day at about 2.00 p.m. Hence, claim petition was filed seeking compensation for his death on the premise that his death has occurred in the course of his employment with the first respondent as driver of tractor bearing registration No. MH-10/9475. In the proceedings before the Commissioner, after conducting enquiry, by recording the evidence of both the parties, the claim petition was allowed awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,33,820/- payable with interest at 12% per annum.

3. Being aggrieved by the same, the second respondent-insurer has come up in this appeal impugning the same on the ground that the death of Motilal cannot be attributed to the injuries sustained in the course of the accident while using the vehicle and that there is no nexus between the cause for the death and the vehicle in which he was working as driver at the relevant point of time and to substantiate the same, he relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 721 : AIR 2009 SC 2019 and also the unreported judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The Divisional Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Renuka and others in MFA No. 31715/2009 disposed of by judgment dated 30-4-2014 and also another judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mamtaj Bi Bapusab Nadaf and others v. United India Assurance Co. and others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 536 : 2010 AIR SCW 5872.

4. By relying on the aforesaid judgments, appellant's counsel tried to draw support to this appeal on the ground that the policy which is issued in the instant case is a policy under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where it would cover the injuries sustained or death resulting in direct use of the vehicle which are caused while vehicle is in direct use in connection with the accident and the injuries caused to the deceased or injured and therefore, in the instant case, there is no nexus between the vehicle and death of Motilal which is due to falling of stone, the same cannot be considered as the accident attributable to the use of vehicle and therefore, the claim petition which is filed as against the insurer is required to be dismissed and the insurance company should be exonerated from paying the compensation.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 rely upon the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Manju Sarkar and another v. Mobish Miah and others, reported in 2014 AIAR (Civil) 807, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court under similar circumstances has distinguished the facts in such a way that when once the employee proceeded with the vehicle in the course of his employment even though the policy is under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if in the course of employment, he suffers any injury, the same should be considered as injury arising out of the employment and as such, he can maintain the petition seeking compensation. If the said judgment is understood in the light of the policy which is issued by the appellant-insurance compa