Judgment :- 1. The appellant is the Insurance Company. The second respondent is the owner of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-31-C-8466. The said lorry was insured with the appellant. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. The first respondent was a driver employed by the second respondent in the lorry. This fact is also not in dispute. 2. On 03.01.2010, the lorry was proceeding from Tuticorin to Pondicherry. While so, the first respondent stopped the lorry for taking tea. When he got down from the vehicle and just put out steps to a tea shop, a car hit him and he got injured. He suffered disability at 40%. These facts are also not in dispute. 3. The first respondent filed W.C.No.49 of 2010 claiming compensation for the injuries suffered, against the lorry owner as well as the Insurance Company. The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirappalli passed an order dated 14.05.2012 granting a sum of Rs.1,74,115/- as compensation. This appeal is against the aforesaid order. 4. The only ground that is urged before me by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the lorry which was insured with the appellant did not involve in the accident and therefore, the first respondent is not entitled for compensation. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the impugned judgment. 6. As stated above, the facts are not in dispute. It is not the case of the appellant that the first respondent was not a workman employed by the second respondent in the lorry. If the driver stops a moment and takes a tea, the same cannot be described that the accident did not occur during the course of employment. The lorry was in his control and he got separated from the lorry for a few minutes and in the mean time, the accident took place. Admittedly, there is a policy covering the workman-driver of the lorry. Whenever the accident takes place in the course of employment, the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the same. Hence, I am not inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, there is a policy covering the workman-driver of the lorry. Whenever the accident takes place in the course of employment, the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the same. Hence, I am not inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. In fact, the actual defence put forth by the Insurance Company in paragraph-5 of its counter affidavit filed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is that: “Therefore, there has been no nexus the user of lorry of the 1st respondent and the accident was not due to and in the course of employment.” 7. The aforesaid defence was repeated by the learned counsel for the appellant. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. In my view, there is no infirmity in the award of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Tiruchirappalli. The Commissioner has given a finding that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and it cannot be described as a perverse one. It is a finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner and I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 9.The first respondent /claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation deposited before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Tiruchirappalli on the file of W.C.No.49 of 2010.