JUDGMENT :

1. The present is an appeal by the Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. The challenge is to the award dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation-cum-Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No.184/E.C.Act/2006-Fatal. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs.4,92,650/-with interest @ 12% per annum. The liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company which had insured the Trailer(Truck) bearing registration No.CG10G1341 owned by respondent no.5. The deceased Beerbal Das Manikpuri, at the time of accident was aged around 35 years and he was basically a driver working with respondent no.5. It is said that in the course of his employment the respondent no.5 had directed the deceased to drop one of his vehicles i.e. Trailer (Truck) bearing registration No.CG10G1341 from Baloda Bazar to Raigarh. The deceased took the vehicle and is said to have dropped the same at the destination at Raigarh. Thereafter, while he was returning from work, enroute he did not feel well and immediately he was taken to a hospital near Baloda Bazar where he was declared dead.

2. It is pertinent at this juncture to note that the deceased was returning from Raigarh in a different vehicle unconnected with his employer neither was it owned by the employer. The said vehicle did not meet with any accident. It is a case where enroute the deceased fell unwell and he was taken to a hospital and by the time he was taken to the hospital he was declared dead. The postmortem report wore an observation that the cause of death seems to be excessive consumption of alcohol whereas there was also an observation made by the doctor who had conducted the postmortem that the death had occurred because of “electrolyte imbalance”.

3. The family members of the deceased i.e. wife and children filed the claim application before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation at Bilaspur where the case was registered as Case No.184/E.C.Act/2006-Fatal. The owner of the Truck which the deceased was assigned to be delivered at Raigarh and the Insurance Company of the said vehicle were made respondents before the Commissioner. Learned Commissioner after examining all the evidences and documents which were brought on record finally vide impugned award dated 25.10.2016 allowed the application and held that the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.4,92,650/-with interest @ 12% per annum. The liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company which had covered the vehicle bearing registration No.CG10G1341 which the deceased had taken from Baloda Bazar and left at Raigarh.

4. While entertaining the appeal this Court had stayed the disbursement of the compensation awarded by the Court below. Subsequently, on 08.03.2017 two questions of law were framed which are as under:

I) Whether there was no any relation between the deceased and R-5 under the provisions of Section 2(dd) and (e) of the Employee’s compensation Act, 1923?

II) Whether the Court below erred in law in holding that the deceased died in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment as required under Section 4 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923?

5. It was the specific contention of the Insurance Company that the vehicle which they had insured had got nothing to do with the compensation as claimed for by the claimants. According to the counsel for the Insurance Company, they had insured the vehicle to the extent of the said vehicle if meets with an accident, under the said circumstances they would indemnify the owner of the said vehicle. Further that vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration No.CG10G1341 was not involved in any accident nor did the deceased die in the course of operating the said truck. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with the liability of indemnifying the respondent no.5 for the death of the deceased. It was the furthe