B. C. KANDPAL, DHARAM VEER, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 30 of the workmen's Compensation Act filed by the insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 26th October, 2004 passed by District Magistrate/workman compensation Commissioner, Rudraprayag in W. C. Case No. 02 of 2003 between smt. Bhadi Devi and others v. National insurance Company Ltd. and another. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that sri Rajendra Singh was working as a driver in Mahindra Pick-up Van bearing registration No. UA 0715/0127. Smt. Sushila devi was the owner of the said vehicle according to the claimant, her husband Shri rajendra Singh has died on 26th October 2002 during the course of employment under the owner of the vehicle. It as further alleged by the claimant that the age of her husband was 38 years and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month at the time of the accident. In the claim petition it has further alleged that the whole family is dependent on the deceased. Therefore, she filed a claim petition for rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. ( 3 ) NATIONAL Insurance Company - appellant/opposite party No. 1 filed its written statement denying the allegations of the claim petition. It has been stated in the written statement that the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of its driver. It has further alleged that the owner of the vehicle violated the terms of policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. ( 4 ) SMT. Shushila Devi - respondent No. 6/ opposite party No. 2 also filed her written statement wherein she has accepted the contents of para No. 1 and 3 to 7. She did not accept the contents of para No. 2 of the claim petition wherein the claimant demand for compensation. In order to support her case, she has produced copy of Registration certificate, Policy Certificate, Insurance and driving Licence. It has further alleged that the whole liability of compensation is on insurance Company. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed following issues: 1]. Whether the deceased - Rajendra singh was died during the course of his employment under the opposite party No. 2? 2]. What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident? 3]. What was the monthly income of the deceased? 4]. Whether the deceased - Rajendra singh was died during the course of his employment under the opposite party No. 2? 2]. What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident? 3]. What was the monthly income of the deceased? 4]. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation? If yes, from whom? 5]. Whether at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was having valid papers? 6]. Whether the deceased was having the valid driving licence at the time of the accident? ( 6 ) THEREAFTER the Workmen Compensation commissioner has afforded an opportunity to both the parties in order to produce evidence in their support. The learned commissioner after hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire material available on record awarded an amount of Rs. 3,79,120/- to the claimant along with 10% interest against the National insurance Company Ltd. vide judgment and award dated 26th October, 2004. ( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the National Insurance company Ltd. filed this appeal before this court. ( 8 ) HEARD Sri K. K. Shai , learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri R. P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant argued only on the point that when the accident took place, the deceased was not under the employment of respondent No. 6/ opposite party No. 2 - Smt. Sushila Devi. Therefore, the National Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has denied the aforesaid facts. According to him Smt. Sushila Devi in her written statement has admitted that the accident took place on 26th October, 2002 at Tilwara, tehsil and District Rudraprayag. Her statement also makes is cleatht on the date of accident, the deceased was under her employment and the claimants are entitled for compensation for the death of the deceased. ( 11 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has further argued the liability of compensation is on the owner of the vehicle. Her statement also makes is cleatht on the date of accident, the deceased was under her employment and the claimants are entitled for compensation for the death of the deceased. ( 11 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has further argued the liability of compensation is on the owner of the vehicle. ( 12 ) AFTER perusing the material available before us, we are of the view that Smt. Sushila devi produced certificates before the workmen Compensation Commissioner pertaining to the Insurance of the vehicle in question, therefore, liability of compensation has rightly been held by the Workmen compensation Commissioner against the insurance Company. As it is a settled law that if the vehicle in question insured with insurance Company, it is the liability of the insurance Company to pay compensation. No other issue has been ra ised by the learned counsel for the appellant. ( 13 ) IN view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the Workmen compensation Commissioner has rightly awarded the amount. The Workmen compensation Commissioner has discussed each and every point in detail. Learned counsel for the appellant has not argued on the point of quantum. We do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Workmen compensation Commissioner. ( 14 ) IN view of the above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. --- *** --- .