JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by 1CICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. against the award dated 29-9- 2011 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner Jaipur City in case No. WCC N.F./260/2010 whereby he allowed the claim filed by the claimants and awarded Rs. 8,23,800/- as compensation with interest. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim petition on 7-10-2010 for compensation against the appellant Insurance Company and the respondent No. 4 before the Commissioner Workmen Compensation Act, Jaipur City Jaipur on account of alleged loss suffered by them due to death of Shri. At-nit Kumar who allegedly died on 17- 9-2010 during the alleged course of his employment, as a driver, on the vehicle bearing registration No. MH 04 EB 8087, which was owned by respondent No.6 and was insured with the appellant insurance company. It was alleged that at the time of death deceased was 25 years old driver and was getting Rs. 10,000/- per month salary and as such the claim petition was preferred. The respondent No. 2 the alleged employer, though filed its reply to the claim petition but did not appear before the Commissioner in witness box. The appellant submitted its reply to the claim application denying the averments. It was submitted that there was no evidence on record to establish the relationship of employer and employee and to establish that the deceased died due to the alleged injuries sustained by him during the alleged course of employment and the insured vehicle was being used in contravention of mandatory provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the insurance company had no liability due to noncompliance of mandatory and binding conditions of the contract of insurance. No notice under Section 10 of the Act of 1923 was ever served. On the basis of the pleadings of all the parties, the Commissioner framed as many as five issues and proceeded to record the evidence of the parties. After arguments the learned Commissioner decided all the issues in favour of the claimants vide award dated 29-9-2011 and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,23,800/- along with interest. 4. Mr. On the basis of the pleadings of all the parties, the Commissioner framed as many as five issues and proceeded to record the evidence of the parties. After arguments the learned Commissioner decided all the issues in favour of the claimants vide award dated 29-9-2011 and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,23,800/- along with interest. 4. Mr. Man Singh Chundawat, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has argued that the award is absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction and perverse to the well settled preposition of law. The Commissioner committed grave error in not considering the fact that the claim petition preferred was not maintainable for the want of territorial jurisdiction. No documentary evidence whatsoever was placed on record to establish that the claimants were legal heirs of the deceased. There is no reliable evidence on record to establish that deceased was employed in the capacity of a paid driver on the vehicle insured with the appellant insurance company. The salary certificate was not proved in evidence. No independent witness was produced to establish that the deceased was under employment of respondent No. 6 at the time of accident. The computation of the amount of compensation is also erroneous. No notice of Section 10 of the Act was served and hence it is violation of the statutory condition of the Act. The compensation as awarded by the Commissioner Workmen Compensation vide order dated 29-9-2011 is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. Ritesh Jain, learned counsel appearing for the claimants has argued that the Commissioner Workmen Compensation has considered all the material evidence and the documents produced by the parties and the findings arrived at by the Commissioner can- not be said to be perverse. The Compensation was rightly computed as per the evidence and the provisions of law. The deceased was in the employment of the respondent No.6 and hence the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation is just and proper as the vehicle was insured with the insurance company. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also looked into the award passed by the Commissioner Workmen Compensation. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner by a detailed award considered all the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties and also took into consideration the evidence produced by the claimants and the documents. The award passed is just and proper. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner by a detailed award considered all the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties and also took into consideration the evidence produced by the claimants and the documents. The award passed is just and proper. The Commissioner Workmen Compensation in its award in relation to issue Nos. 1 and 2 held that at time of accident the workman was in the employment of the respondent No. 6 as a driver and during employment in accident he died. The truck on which the deceased was employed as driver was insured with the insurance company. Looking to the age of the deceased and as per the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, the Commissioner held that the claimants are entitled for Rs. 8,23,800/- and interest. There is no illegality in the findings arrived at by the Commissioner. The claimants in these circumstances are entitled for compensation from the insurance company. The award is just and proper and the interest was rightly awarded. The appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******