Judgment This C.M.A is preferred against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Asst. Commissioner of Labour-IV in W.C.No.11 of 2006 dated 24-01-2008. 2. The counsel for the appellant mainly urged that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto and that the death was not during the employment of the deceased. He further urged that the deceased was not having valid driving license at the time of the accident. In support of his arguments he placed reliance on a decision reported in Rashida Haroon Kupurade Vs Div.Manager, Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd and others A.I.R.2010 S.C.1006 wherein the Supreme Court held that the employer is not liable to pay compensation when there is no nexus between death and accidents. He also relied on decision reported in Malikarjuna G.Hiremath Vs Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., and another (2009) 13 SCC 405 3. The counsel appearing for the respondent while submitting his arguments drawn the attention of the Court to the observation of the lower Court wherein it has clearly held that the death was during the employment of the deceased and therefore the Insurance Company should pay the compensation. 4. Now the point for consideration is, whether the order of the lower Court is sustainable? 5. As already stated, it is the contention of the counsel for the respondent that the deceased had a valid driving license at the time of accident. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased was having driving license and the same is marked as Ex.A.6. A perusal of Ex.A.6 shows that the deceased was given driving license to drive the vehicles. Against the evidence of P.W.1, none were examined on behalf of the Insurance Company to rebut the evidence urging that the deceased had no valid driving license. However, in view of the documentary evidence-Ex.A.6 and non-examination of any witness to falsify the document-Ex.A.6, it remains unrebutted that the deceased was having valid driving license. 6. The next point for consideration is, whether the deceased died while he was in employment and the accident was due to the negligence of the opposite party? 7. During course of evidence, the applicants filed Exs.A.1 to A.11. 6. The next point for consideration is, whether the deceased died while he was in employment and the accident was due to the negligence of the opposite party? 7. During course of evidence, the applicants filed Exs.A.1 to A.11. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of the F.I.R; Ex.A.2 is the charge sheet; Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of inquest report; and Ex.A.4 is the certified copy of post- mortem examination report. 8. On perusal of Exs.A.1 and A.2, the police, after due investigation, filed the charge sheet against the driver of the opposite vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 9. The evidence of P.W.1 is with regard to the involvement of the deceased who was driver of the auto bearing No.AP 9V 8790 and also the involvement of the driver of the seven seater auto bearing No.AP 24U 7512. The deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to his injuries in Gandhi Hospital on the same day of accident while undergoing treatment. 10. As per Ex.A.1-F.I.R and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that the deceased, while he was on duty as driver of Auto bearing No.AP 9V 8790, on 23-09-2005 proceeding to Nizampet cross roads at 12.00 noon. When the said auto reached near Ashwini hospital, Kukatpally, another auto bearing No.AP 24U 7512 came in the opposite direction, suddenly dashed against the auto of the deceased. When the deceased questioned the driver of the opposite auto the reason for driving the vehicle so rashly and negligently, there was a quarrel between them. In that quarrel the deceased fell down on the road and sustained head injury. Thereafter succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. 11. The main contention of the counsel for appellant is that the quarrel was not in the course of employment and it is a private quarrel between the deceased and the opposite party and it cannot be said that the injuries sustained by the deceased while he was in the course of employment. Exs.A.1 and A.2 are the crucial documents, which clearly reveals that the deceased died due to attack of the other side auto driver resulting head injury leading to his death. 12. The counsel for respondent placed reliance on the decisions reported in Ravindra Singh Negi Vs. Workmen's compensation Commissioner, Chamoli and others 2005-III-LLJ and Oriental Insurance Company, Ltd., Chennai vs Santhi and others4. 12. The counsel for respondent placed reliance on the decisions reported in Ravindra Singh Negi Vs. Workmen's compensation Commissioner, Chamoli and others 2005-III-LLJ and Oriental Insurance Company, Ltd., Chennai vs Santhi and others4. The facts stated in those decisions are not applicable to the present case on hand in view of the clear finding of the police that the death was due to quarrel between the deceased and the driver of the opposite vehicle. 13. In recent decision reported in Rashida Haroon Kupurade case, the Bench of the Apex Court held that in case, cases falls under Workmen's compensation Act for granting compensation, the employer liability was extensively discussed. It has also held that the accident arising within and in the course of employment and the claimant should prove the nexus between the death and the accident, and if they failed to prove the same, employer is not liable to pay any compensation. In the present case on hand, it has to be seen whether there is any nexus between the accident and the death. Admittedly the deceased died due to head injury when he was fallen on the ground due to violent attack by the opposite driver. The facts noted in the aforesaid decision are squarely applicable to the present case on hand. Further in another decision reported in Malikarjuna G.Hiremath's case, the apex Court also held that if there is no sufficient material to connect the death with the rash and negligent driving, the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability. These two decisions of the apex Court amply focussed the doctrine in proving the nexus between the death and the accident. Therefore the Court below ought not to have awarded any compensation as the deceased auto driver died due to the quarrel between him and the driver of the seven-seater auto and not died during the course of employment in view of the clear admission of P.W.1 coupled with documentary evidence-Exs.A.1 to A.3 which cuts the root of the defence that deceased died in the course of employment. So when there is no nexus between the death and the accident, the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances, the finding of the labour Court that the deceased died while he was on duty as auto driver at the time of accident cannot be sustained. 14. So when there is no nexus between the death and the accident, the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances, the finding of the labour Court that the deceased died while he was on duty as auto driver at the time of accident cannot be sustained. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. During course of arguments, the counsel for the appellant submitted that 50% of the award amount deposited by the Insurance Company was withdrawn. Pursuant to finding while allowing the appeal, the Insurance Company is at liberty to take recourse for recovery of the said amount which was withdrawn by the claimants/respondents. There shall be no order as to costs.