JUDGMENT N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO 1. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 30-12-2002 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Eluru in W.C. Case No. 18 of 2001. The applicants are the dependents of the deceased-Mandava Ramesh who is said to be a lorry driver and getting a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month including batta from Opposite party No. 1. According to the applicants, while the deceased was on duty on 10-04-2001 at about 9.00 A.M at Mangapet village, during the transit of the lorry when he was cooking the food, his lungi caught fired and received severe burnt injuries and succumbed to injuries on 18-04-2001. Accordingly, a claim for compensation of Rs.3 lakh was made. 2. Opposite Party No. 1 was served by publication. Opposite Party No. 2 who is the appellant herein denied the liability and also the cause of death and claimed that there is no nexus between the cause of death and employment and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the said amount. The learned Commissioner has rejected this contention and granted a compensation of Rs.2,83,353/-. Challenging the same the present appeal is filed. 3. Now the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation granted by the court below? POINT:- 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in order to fasten the liability of the Insurance Company, the cause of death should be during and in the course of employment of the workman and the nexus has to be proved and in the absence of such evidence and material, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. He relied upon the decision reported in Mallikarjuna G. Hiremath Vs. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another 2009 ACJ 721 . 5. In the above case, the Supreme Court has considered the scope of the liability of the Insurance Company and reiterated the earlier principles. One of the principles is there should be a nexus between the accident and employment. It was finally held if the accident has occurred on account of a risk, which is an incident of the employment, the claim for compensation must succeed unless of course the workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act, by referring to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court. It was finally held if the accident has occurred on account of a risk, which is an incident of the employment, the claim for compensation must succeed unless of course the workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act, by referring to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court. In this case, if the facts are to be taken into consideration, the deceased was driving the vehicle and in the course of employment of Opposite Party No. 1. Evidently, the vehicle is said to have been stopped for cooking of the food. Naturally, in the course of employment the driver of the vehicle can go to any hotel or any place for taking the food and by habit he may opt for cooking of the food by himself. Therefore, while he was in employment and while he was cooking the food for himself the incident was happened. Therefore, it is difficult to accept that the cause of death was not in the course of employment. If an example is to be taken that if the driver of the vehicle without cooking food by himself and while going to any hotel or place for taking food met with an accident, then it squarely covers a case of accident during the course of employment. If such case is covered, I do not find any reason as to why a driver cooking food for himself while on duty met with unfortunate death without his own contribution to the incident shall be denied the compensation. 6. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the Insurance Company cannot contend that there is no liability. But, however, as can be seen from the record, the claimants themselves claimed that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.2,500/- including batta. When such is the claim of the claimants, the liberal attitude shown by the Commissioner in invoking the minimum wages and fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,175/- is not proper and on that ground the award has to be interfered. Therefore, the applicants will be entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,23,112.50 [Rs.2,500/- x 50/100 x 178.49]. 7. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal below is modified and the total compensation to which the applicants are entitled Rs.2,23,112.50 paise in stead of Rs.2,83,353/- as granted by the Tribunal below. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.