JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 has been filed by the insurance Company aggrieved against the award dated 27.9.2012 passed by the Employees' Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur ('Commissioner'), whereby, it has allowed the application for compensation ('application') and has ordered for payment of compensation against the employer and the appellant Insurance Company. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-claimants filed an application against the employer and appellant insurance Company before the Commissioner, inter alia, with the averments that one Deva Ram was employed as a Driver by the employer on the vehicle insured with the appellant and when on 2.5.2008 he was driving the Tanker No. RJ-09-G-2632 on the National Highway No. 114; another Tanker No. RJ-19-GB-0505 over took the tanker driven by said Deva Ram and hit a military truck and thereafter stopped at some distance. On account of the said accident between another tanker and the military truck, Deva Ram stopped his truck and the Army personnel from the military truck approached him when he tried to flee away from his tanker; the Army personnel caught hold of Deva Ram and gave severe beating resulting in his sustaining injuries, to which, he succumbed during treatment. 3. The application was filed seeking compensation for death of Deva Ram during the course of his employment and as the accident arose out of his employment. The owner of the insured vehicle did not appear despite service and proceedings remained ex parte against him. The appellant insurance Company filed its reply and denied the averments made by the claimants. 4. Based on the averments contained in the reply of appellant insurance Company, seven issues were framed by the Commissioner and, after hearing the parties, it came to the conclusion that deceased Deva Ram was employed as driver of Tanker No. RJ09-G-2632 and while under the employment of the respondent- employer, he died on account of accident arising out of and during the course of his employment; no condition of the policy was violated. The salary of deceased Deva Ram was Rs. 5,000/- per month and ultimately the Commissioner awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,97,120/- and interest @ 12% per annum which came to Rs. 2,09,897/- against employer and Insurance Company and further imposed penalty of Rs. 40,000/- on the employer alone. 5. The salary of deceased Deva Ram was Rs. 5,000/- per month and ultimately the Commissioner awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,97,120/- and interest @ 12% per annum which came to Rs. 2,09,897/- against employer and Insurance Company and further imposed penalty of Rs. 40,000/- on the employer alone. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant insurance Company that it cannot be said that the death of Deva Ram occurred on account of accident arising out of and during the course of his employment, inasmuch as, at the time when he was given severe beating by the Army personnel, he was off the insured tanker and, therefore, it cannot be said that the accident/death occurred during the course of his employment. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 7. The Commissioner while considering the said issue has relied on the statement of Ratta Ram, the eye-witness, who was working as cleaner on the said tanker and came to the conclusion that the Army personnel gave beating to Deva Ram while he was working as driver of the tanker, which resulted in severe injuries and he ultimately succumbed to such injuries. The finding recorded by the Commissioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when on behalf of the respondents no evidence was led and it was the specific case of the claimants that the Army personnel gave beating to Deva Ram, while he was driving the tanker and as another tanker had struck the military truck, which plea has not been negated by any evidence, cannot be said to be perverse and/or give rise to a substantial question of law. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rita Devi (Smt.) & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2000) 5 SCC 113 , while dealing with the case under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and taking into consideration the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 came to the conclusion that death of the driver was caused accidentally in the process of committing theft of the auto- rickshaw would also amount to death due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. 9. 9. In the present case, when the deceased Deva Ram was driving the tanker and another tanker over took him and struck the military vehicle, the Army personnel for whatever reason gave severe beating to the deceased as he was driving the tanker on the Highway and happened to be present at the site of accident, and the deceased suffered grievous injuries and died on account of such injuries, such incident/accident can only said to have arisen during the course of employment of deceased Deva Ram and arising out of his employment only as it is only on account of he is working as driver of the said tanker that he was passing on the highway and unfortunately got severe beating from the Army personnel on account of his being driver of the tanker. 10. In vie of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******