JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the insurer under Section 30(1) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the legality and correctness of judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Sub-Division-1, Hubli, in No. WCA/F.117/1997, dated 30-11-2004. 2. The brief facts of the case is that initially deceased Abraham Philip Parsha filed claim petition before the W.C. Commissioner, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him during the course and out of employment. During the pendency of said claim petition Abraham Philip Parsha died and hence his L.Rs came on record. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was working as a cleaner under respondent 4 in the lorry/truck bearing No. MEW 4536, respondents 2 and 3 has taken some contract work of construction of bridge to river and therefore hired the vehicle in question. That on 19-2-1996 at about 5.30 p.m. during the course of employment while unloading the materials like cement, iron, etc., from the vehicle in question near the work place at Tatti Halla, the bridge under construction collapsed and the deceased sustained grievous injuries, therefore he filed claim petition before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, but he died on 27-9-2000 during the pendency of claim petition, therefore his L.Rs were brought on record. A case in Cr. No. 22 of 1996 is also registered under Sections 288 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the respondent 2. The Commissioner for Workmens Compensation after recording the evidence of both the• parties and after hearing Counsel for the parties, passed judgment and award-directing the appellant herein to pay compensation of Rs. 1,73,465/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 30 days after the date of death i.e., 27-12-2000 till deposit. Hence this appeal. 3. Heard the arguments for the learned Counsel for the appellant and respondents and perused the records, the only substantial questions of law- involved in this appeal is: (a) Whether the findings of the Commissioner that the death of late Abraham Philip Parsha was on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident is justified? (b) Whether there exist any nexus between the death and the injury sustained by the deceased? (c) Whether there is any nexus between the employment and death of the deceased? (d) Whether the provisions of Section 147(1)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are applicable for consideration? (b) Whether there exist any nexus between the death and the injury sustained by the deceased? (c) Whether there is any nexus between the employment and death of the deceased? (d) Whether the provisions of Section 147(1)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are applicable for consideration? and (e) Whether the Commissioner is justified in awarding compensation and fastening the liability on the appellant? 4. It is argued by the Counsel for the appellant that the injuries sustained by late Abraham Philip Parsha was not due to involvement of the vehicle as he fell down from the bridge not due to the negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle therefore the liability fastened on the insurer is totally incorrect, perverse and the deceased has not sustained injuries when the vehicle was in motion, vehicle was stationed for unloading purpose, therefore the liability fastened on it, is liable to be set aside. Further, it is argued that the respondents 2 and 3 who had undertaken construction of the bridge near the scene of accident, for which the insurer is not liable. The liability was only on the part of respondents 2 and 3 who are principle employers, therefore it is prayed that the liability fastened on the appellant/insurer is incorrect and illegal. Hence prays for allowing the appeal. 5. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the L.Rs of respondent 1 submitted that under Section 3 of the W.C. Act, employer is liable to pay compensation to the employee in respect of injury or death of a workmen met with an accident, arising out of and during the course of employment. Hence prays for allowing the appeal. 5. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the L.Rs of respondent 1 submitted that under Section 3 of the W.C. Act, employer is liable to pay compensation to the employee in respect of injury or death of a workmen met with an accident, arising out of and during the course of employment. In the instant case deceased Abraham-respondent 1 was working under the injured and he fell down near the unloading spot, therefore it is argued that it should be construed that he sustained injuries or death in the course of and arising out of employment, m support of this contention he has relied on a decision of the Division Bench of our High Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited, Bangalore v Smt. Channamma and Others!, wherein it has been held that: "The phrase "in the course of employment" suggest the point of time i.e., the injury must be caused during the course of employment, whereas the expression out of employment conveys the idea that there must be some sort of connection between the employment and the injury caused to the workmen as a result of accident, it is further held that there is a clear nexus of the deceased meeting with the death in the course of and arising out of employment". 6. It is further argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the denial of liability to pay the compensation by the appellant, on the ground that the vehicle was not in movement and the deceased was ,not in the vehicle cannot be sustained. In this behalf he has relied on the recent judgment of Division Bench of our High Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v Smt. Mariamma and Others, wherein it is held that: "The words "being carried in the vehicle" need not be interpreted technically and rigidly. A person employed in a goods vehicle as a cleaner is deemed to be in employment and deemed to be being carried in the vehicle", even in a situation where vehicle is stopped temporarily in the course of journey, the accident if it happens in the course of employment and the risk of accident is inherent in nature of employment, it is deemed to be in the course of and out of employment, insurer is liable to indemnify". 7. 7. Therefore it is submitted that the Workmens Compensation Commissioner is right in fastening the liability upon the appellant. Hence prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. I have carefully examined the materials placed on record and also the arguments advanced by Advocate for both the parties. 9. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent 2 and 3 had undertaken for construction of the bridge therefore that had purchased cement, steel and etc., and engaged the lorry in question belonging to respondent 4 for purpose of transportation, the deceased Abraham was working as a cleaner under respondent 4 who went along with the vehicle on the fateful day, that after transporting the material to Tatti Halli i.e., work spot, he was standing near the place of work i.e., the bridge, some labourers were preparing the concrete mixture some of them were dumping the concrete mixture, the others were maisons levelling, under the supervisions of respondent 3, but the place where the construction was going on was collapsed consequently late Abraham being a cleaner fell down sustained grievous injuries, during the lifetime he himself filed the claim petition but died during the pendency of claim petition, therefore his wife and son came on record as his L.Rs. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there was no involvement of the vehicle in the accident and that he was under the employment of respondents 2 and 3 cannot be accepted, duty of a cleaner to accompany the driver to and assist the driver, only because the vehicle in question was in a stationed position when the deceased sustained injuries, it does not mean that the injuries sustained by the deceased was not during the course of his employment. There is a direct nexus between the death of the deceased and the injuries sustained. Even though the vehicle was in the stationed position, the deceased being a cleaner was near the place of incident, where the materials were being unloaded from the lorry, therefore the incident is deemed to be occurred in the course of employment and the deceased sustained injuries in the course of employment and the same arise out of employment. 10. The other contention raised by the Counsel for the appellant that only the respondents 2 and 3 being the principle employer is liable to pay the compensation is also not sustainable. 10. The other contention raised by the Counsel for the appellant that only the respondents 2 and 3 being the principle employer is liable to pay the compensation is also not sustainable. Admittedly the construction work was undertaken by the respondents 2 and 3 and they engaged the vehicle in question to transport building materials as such there is no relationship of principle employer and the employee between the respondents 2 and 3 and the deceased, the respondents 2 and 3 had no any kind of control over the work of the deceased as such there exist no relationship between deceased and respondents 2 and 3. The respondents 2 and 3 have only engaged the vehicle for transportation of the materials on payment of hire charges. Therefore there is no relationship of employee and employer between the deceased cleaner and the respondents 2 and 3. The vehicle in question was duly insured by respondent 4 with the appellant, the policy was in force, therefore the appellant is liable to indemnify the respondent 4/the owner of the vehicle. The ratio laid down in the decisions referred to and relied on by the L.R. of the respondent 1 are applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore the Commissioner has rightly fastened the liability on the appellant/insurer to pay the award amount and the same is in accordance with law. 11. However while awarding interest the Workmens Compensation Commissioner come to a wrong conclusion in awarding interest on the compensation amount from 30 days after the death of the deceased i.e., 27-10-2000 till the date of deposit. The Workmens Compensation Commissioner ought to have awarded interest on the compensation amount from 30 days after the date of adjudication of claim petition. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in apart. The compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and the liability fastened on the appellant to satisfy the award is hereby confirmed, however awarding of interest from 27-10-2000 is hereby modified. The L.Rs of respondent 1 are entitled to interest on the compensation amount at 12% p.a. from 30 days after the date of adjudication of claim petition i.e., from 30-12-2004 till the date of deposit. The amount in deposit before this Court if any shall be transferred to the Workmens Compensation Commissioner concerned for payment. The claimants/L.Rs of respondent 1, are entitled to withdrawn the entire compensation amount. The amount in deposit before this Court if any shall be transferred to the Workmens Compensation Commissioner concerned for payment. The claimants/L.Rs of respondent 1, are entitled to withdrawn the entire compensation amount. The appellant is entitled to refund of excess amount if any deposited by it. No order as to costs.