Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—With the consent of both the parties, this appeal is being decided at this juncture itself. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased, Sardar Singh, was the driver of truck No.RJ-32-G-1194 which was owned by respondent No.4 and was insured with the appellant. On the intervening night of 11th and 12th September, 2005, after loading the goods, the deceased parked the truck and went to sleep on the road. One unidentified truck came and crushed him. Due to the said accident, Sardar Sigh died at the spot. A FIR was lodged at the Police Station Murlipura on 12.09.2004 against the unidentified truck. The claimants being the legal representatives of deceased driver claimed compensation under the provisions of the Act of 1923 which was registered as Claim Case No.13/2004. The appellant, the Insurance Company submitted reply to the claim petition. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner framed as many as five issues. On behalf of the claimants two witnesses namely, Smt. Suraj Kanwar and Surendra Singh, were examined as witnesses and five documentary evidence were produced. On behalf of the appellant, Insurance Company, a single witness was examined and also documentary evidence were produced. The learned Commissioner after hearing the counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition, vide award dated 14.07.2009, negativing the defence taken by the appellant, Insurance Company, and passed an award of Rs.2,49,000/- towards loss of income plus Rs.2,500/- towards? and further awarded interest @ 12% per annum from one month after the date of accident till its actual payment. Aggrieved by the award dated 14.07.2009, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. Virendra Agarwal, has vehemently contended that according to the claimants themselves, the deceased, Sardar Singh, was sleeping near the truck when the accident occurred. Hence, he was not on duty. Therefore, one of the essential ingredients of Section 3 of the Workman Compensation Act, ('the Act', for short), namely, that the persons had suffered injury or death “during the course of employment” has not been fulfilled in the present case. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Mathur, the learned counsel for the claimants, has strenuously argued that admittedly Sardar Singh was the driver of the truck. According to the claimants, having emptied the truck of its goods, Sardar Singh had, in fact, slept right next to the truck. While the truck is on the move, the driver is responsible for ensuring the safety and security of the truck. Thus, even while he was sleeping, and that too right next to the truck, he is fulfilling his responsibility of guarding the truck - a responsibility which is related to his employment as the driver. Thus, he was on duty, when he was run over. Hence, he died “during the course of his employment”. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 6. It is common knowledge that when truck drivers ply their vehicles, covering great distance, they are not only responsible for driving the vehicle, but are equally responsible for its safety and security. It is for this very purpose, the driver do not abandon the truck during the night. In order to keep vigilance over the truck, in order to ensure its safety, generally the drivers sleep in and around the truck. After all, the safety of the truck is equally their responsibility. Thus, while Sardar Singh slept right next to the truck, he had done so in order to discharge his duties. Therefore, it can safely be said that the accident did occur “during the course of employment”. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company is unacceptable. 7. A bare perusal of the award clearly shows that the other contentions and objections raised by the Insurance Company were duly considered, discussed and decided by the learned Commissioner. Hence, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned award. 8. Thus, this appeal is devoid of merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.