JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Delay Condonation Application No. 5546 of 2013 1. I find sufficient ground to allow the delay condonation application in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. AO No. 242 of 2013 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and order dated 30.03.2013 passed by Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Haldwani, District Nainital in W.C.A. Case No. 74 of 2013, Smt. Pushpa & others Vs Bachi Singh & others whereby the learned Commissioner awarded a sum of ‘3,97,849/- in favour of the respondents/claimants. 3. Following substantial question of law has been framed:- 1. Whether the death of the deceased due to his murder which is an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. could be said to have been caused by accident arising out of his employment? 2. Whether in view of sub-section (ii) and (iii) of proviso (b) annexed to section 3 of The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 the employer and insurer can be held liable for the death by murder 4. In this appeal the ground taken by the Insurance Company is that the death of Ram Gopal was caused due to his murder by one Basant Ballabh Pandey, therefore, this case does not fall within the purview of the Act. Therefore, the Insurance Company/appellant cannot be held liable to pay compensation as claimed by the claimants. 5. This fact is not disputed that the deceased had been murdered when he was discharging his duty in plying the Truck No. UAC/7870, which was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company and he was murdered by another truck driver, namely, Basant Ballabh Pandey. He was murdered because of quarrel with another driver. The learned Commissioner following the judgments of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Union of India & others Vs Ifzal Hussain & others reported in 2011(2) TAC and The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & others Vs Smt. Fatimadi & others reported in 2011(2) TAC has held that the deceased was murdered during the course of employment at the time of performing his duty. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the question framed in the memo of appeal does not arise for consideration. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.