Dinesh Chandra Somani, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the non-claimant/appellant under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the judgment and award dated 22/09/2009 passed by the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, Jaipur District-II, Jaipur in Claim Case No. WCCF 122/2008, whereby the learned Commissioner allowed the claim petition and passed an award of Rs. 4,33,060/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 22/06/2008.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the claim petition was filed by the claimant/respondents No. 1 to 3 (wife and parents of the deceased Hari Singh) under the provisions of the Act for getting compensation of Rs. 51,00,000/- along with interest on account of death of Hari Singh. The claim petition was filed taking stand that the death of the deceased had occurred during the course of employment under the non-claimant/respondents No. 4 & 5. It was also averred in the petition that the deceased Hari Singh was employed as driver on vehicle No.RJ-14-CB-0752 under the employment of non-claimant/respondents and the said vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurance company. It was also averred that on 22/05/2008, while Hari Singh was driving the vehicle No.RJ-14-CB-0752 under the directions of non-claimant/respondents, suddenly his health condition worsened and he died during the employment. It was also averred that at the time of the incident, the deceased Hari Singh was 22 years old and he was getting Rs. 7,000/- per month as salary and Rs. 50/- per day as diet allowance from his employers.

3. The non-claimant/respondents filed written statement admitting the fact that the deceased Hari Singh was employed under their employment on their truck No.RJ-14-CB-0752 and was paid Rs. 7,000/- per month as salary. The non-claimant/respondents also stated that the vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurance company at the relevant time, as such liability if any arises to pay the compensation, then the insurance company is liable to pay the same and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against them.

4. The appellant-insurance company filed the written statement denying the averments of the claim petition and pleaded that there is no evidence on record to establish the relationship of employee and employer. It was also pleaded that there is no nexus between the employment and the death. It is also stated that the death of Hari Singh occurred due to effect of the liquor and he died on account of overdose of the liquor. It was further stated that the insured vehicle was being plied by the insured without permit and fitness certificate' and the driver was not having valid license, and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company.

5. On basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner framed as many as five issues.

6. In support of the claim petition, the claimants submitted affidavit of Smt. Tanu Kanwar, claimant herself. Copy of the affidavit was provided to learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company, who cross-examined the witness on her affidavit. The claimants exhibited as many as 7 documents to be Ex.1 to Ex.7. The employer-respondent did not produce any evidence. The appellant-insurance company submitted affidavit of Chandradeep Singh and exhibited as many as six documents to be Ex.NA-1 to Ex.NA-6.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Commissioner decided the claim petition vide impugned judgment dated 22/09/2009 and passed an award of Rs. 4,33,060/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from 22/06/2008 i.e. after one month of the date of incident.

8. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal.

9. Mr. Virendra Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is very much clear from the FIR that the deceased Hari Singh took liquor at Dhaba and thereafter he died on