S.G. Shah, J.

Heard learned advocate Ms.Aditi S. Raol for Ms.Vidhi Bhatt for appellant and learned advocate Mr.Hemal N. Shah for the respondent. Perused the record as well as record and proceedings.

2. The appellant herein is original opponent no.2 - Insurance Company of the vehicle in question which was owned by the respondent no.2. Respondents no.1 to 5 are original claimants before Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act at Amreli in Workman Case (Fatal) No.3 of 2013. By impugned judgment and award dated 08.07.2014, the Commissioner has while allowing such application awarded amount of Rs. 5,24,800/- as compensation to be paid by the appellant with 12% interest thereon from 12.03.2013 till its realization. Being aggrieved by such award, the appellant has preferred this appeal contending that the nature of the incident where victim Kanubhai Mansukhbhai Jalaiya died, cannot be considered as accident arising out of and/or during the course of his employment with the opponent no.6 - employer, and therefore, claimants are not entitled to compensation either under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and thereby, award of Commissioner directing the appellant to indemnify the respondent no.6 - owner of the vehicle and employer of the deceased victim is unwarranted and needs to be quashed and set aside.

3. So far as factual details are concerned, it is an undisputed fact that the victim of the incident namely, Kanubhai Mansukhabhai Jalaiya was serving as a driver of dumper truck No.GJ - 14 W - 1241 owned by respondent no.6 herein namely Shivom Construction Pvt. Ltd. It is also undisputed fact that on 12.02.2013, the deceased - victim had taken the truck at village Bhukhariya for loading it with gravels from one Bhavani Industries. It is also an undisputed fact that respondent no.6 is a Private Limited Company having a Government Contract and deals in work of constructing roads and there was a contract between the respondent no.6 and Bhavani Industries for supplying gravels for roads and therefore, whenever the gravel was required, it was brought in dumper truck. Deceased victim had gone as driver in such a dumper truck to the site of Bhavani Industries for loading gravels with labourers and then, to carry them at the construction site. It is also undisputed fact that on 12.02.2013 when the truck was loaded with gravels at Bhavani Industries, deceased victim was waiting outside the office of such Bhavani Industries for collecting the weight receipt. At such place and time work of blasting stones was carried out but deceased was not knowing about such blast and because of such sudden blast, one huge stone had blown to the place where the deceased was sitting and dashed with the pillar and then hit the head of deceased which resulted into serious injury to the deceased victim on head which resulted into his death.

4. Therefore, legal heirs of the deceased victim had prayed for compensation under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 because as widow and minor of the truck driver, they have no choice but to opt best option available to them for getting compensation at the earliest and without any hazels or technicalities. Therefore, when it is clear and certain that victim was on duty as a driver when he was injured while waiting for collecting receipt of goods loaded in his truck at the place from-where truck was loaded and at that time for some unknown reason, because of blast in the place from where he has to load truck with gravels stones hit on his head which resulted into his death, by all means it is the incident of accident arising out and during course of employment. However, when deceased - victim was serving as a driver of truck and when insurance company has accepted its liability to indemnify the owner of the truck against legal liability both under the M.V. Act as well as under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, most probably, the appellant - insurance company has misguided itself