Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: This appeal is directed against the order of Commissioner, under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 by which the claimants/ respondents have been awarded Rs.4,27,140/- on account of death of Baldev Singh in the course of his employment with respondent No.1.

2. In brief, the claim petition has been filed by the widow, two minor children and parents of Baldev Singh (deceased) who was 25 years of age employed by respondent No.1 as a driver on a monthly salary of Rs.6000/- on the Truck No.PB-29D-9147 which was insured with respondent No.2 (appellant).

3. On 28.3.2009, Baldev Singh (deceased) was going to Calcutta through Bara Banki along-with another Truck bearing No. PB-29-E-9447 owned by respondent No.1. The truck No.PB-29-E-9447 got punctured on the way and both the trucks were stopped on the road. Baldev Singh was helping in changing the tyre when some unidentified persons attacked them with iron rods and caused fatal injuries to Baldev Singh. Post mortem was conducted in the Civil Hospital, Bara Banki and FIR was registered at Police Station Asndra.

4. The claimants served a legal notice dated 10.4.2010 upon respondent No.1 for compensation who denied his liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the vehicle in question was insured with respondent No.2/appellant.

5. The claimants thus filed the claim petition in which they examined Jagdev Singh as AW-1; Tara Singh as AW-2; Ranvir Kaur as AW-3 and produced various documents, whereas respondent No.1 had appeared as RW-1 and respondent No.2 had tendered copy of insurance cover note as Ex. R-1.

6. The learned Commissioner found that the claimants are the legal heirs of Baldev Singh (deceased) and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,27,140/-, out of which 40% was awarded to claimant No.1 (widow) and 15% each to claimant Nos 2 to 5 who are the children and parents of the deceased.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner on the ground that Baldev Singh did not die during the course of his employment. It is submitted that when the occurrence took place, the vehicle in question was not in operation, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mamtaj Bi Bapusab Nadaf and others vs. United India Insurance Company and others (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 536.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with his assistance.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has not raised any serious dispute about the facts which have been narrated hereinabove. He has only argued that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation because the truck was stationary at the time when it got punctured and deceased Baldev Singh had, even if helping in changing the tyre, suffered injuries at the hands of some gundas and died, which cannot be co-related with the insured vehicle.

10. In the case of Mamtaj Bi Bapusab Nadaf and others (Supra), the appeal was filed by two legal representaties of one Basappa Gurappa Hipparagi and Bapusab Nadaf who were the workmen engaged in uploadig maize (foodgrain) from a tractor trailer. When the maize was being unloaded from the tractor to an underground storage bin (hagevu), both the labourers climbed the grocery pit in order to clean it for storing maize and while cleaning, they fell into the grocery pit. They shouted from inside that they were suffocating, a rope was released to them but they did not catch it and died due to asphyxia.

11. The learned Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation, Bizapur, allowed the claim petition holding the Insurance Company liable but the appeal filed by it before the High Court was allowed and the liability of the Insurance Company was set aside with a direction to the claimants to reover the compensation amount from the employer. The Supreme Court has accepted the reasoning of the High Co