Judgment S. Ravi Kumar, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against order dated 22.4.2003 in W.C. No. 38 of 2002 on the file of Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Cudapah. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows: Petitioners are the parents of the deceased employee who submitted application to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Cudapah contending that their son Late G. Narasimhulu was working under third respondent herein, as cleaner on Lorry Bearing No. AP 04 T-1026 and that he died on 14.1.1999 during course of employment and that they are entitled for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation. Lower authority after considering the evidence on record and contentions of both parties, granted Rs. 2,02,332/- as compensation with interest. Aggrieved by the same, Insurance Company preferred the present appeal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Advocate for appellant submitted that the deceased was not traveling on the lorry that was insured with the appellant at the relevant point of time and as the Insurance Policy was issued in favour of vehicle only, the Insurance Company is not liable. It is further contended that the lower authority failed to see that risk of the cleaner will be covered only if he is travelling on the vehicle insured with the appellant and that the lower authority erroneously fastened liability on the Insurance Company and therefore, order of the lower authority has to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, advocate for claimant submitted that the very same point was urged before the lower authority also and the lower authority on a consideration of entire material, discarded the objection and the findings of the lower authority are in accordance with law and that there are no grounds to interfere with the orders of the lower authority. 5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this appeal is whether the order of lower authority is proper, legal and correct? Point: 6. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship of employee and employer between deceased Narasimhulu and 3rd respondent herein. There is also no dispute with regard to death of the deceased. As per the evidence and material on record, deceased was assassinated by unidentified persons at Jujjuru of Krishna District while he was on duty as cleaner. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship of employee and employer between deceased Narasimhulu and 3rd respondent herein. There is also no dispute with regard to death of the deceased. As per the evidence and material on record, deceased was assassinated by unidentified persons at Jujjuru of Krishna District while he was on duty as cleaner. 7. The main objection of the advocate for appellant is that as the deceased was not on the lorry that was insured with the appellant at the time of alleged incident, appellant is not liable. 8. As seen from the evidence, the deceased was proceeding to Guntur from Maharashtra with a load of onions on the lorry belonging to his employer, the said lorry met with an accident near Dorakunta and on the instructions of his employer, the deceased shifted the load into another Lorry Bearing No. ADB 7529 and was proceeding with the goods as per the instructions of his owner and on the way, this unfortunate incident happened. 9. Advocate for claimants submitted that in an application under Workmen's Compensation Act, the main aspect that has to be seen is whether the worker was under the course of employment or not and to support his submission, he cited some decisions. 10. In Oriental Insurance Co., Hyderabad v. K. Karuna and another, 2012 (2) ALD 1 , this Court observed as follows: "What becomes material for determination of claim presented under Workmen Compensation Act is occurrence of injury or death in course of employment. Insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability to pay compensation on ground that death of deceased was not on account of any accident." 11. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Gudivada v. Mandava Krishna Kumari and others, 2012 (4) ALD 266 , where the driver stopped the vehicle for cooking of the food and while he was cooking, he received burnt injures and consequently died and when the Insurance Company objected that he was not on the vehicle at the relevant point of time and prayed for absolving their liability, this Court has not accepted the contention of the Insurance Company and upheld the order of the lower authority. 12. 12. In United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Secunderabad v. Vakiti Balraju and others, 2012 (3) ALD 66 , this Court held that the criteria for determining an application under the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act is whether the injured or the deceased was under the course of employment at the relevant point of time. 13. In General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay v. Mrs. Agnes, AIR 1964 SC 193 , where driver met with accident while going home from Depot after his duty, Honourable Supreme Court held he is entitled for compensation and the incident come under the course of employment. 14. From all the above decisions, it is clear that the Tribunal has to examine whether the insured or deceased was actually under the course of employment or not. In this case, it is clear from the evidence that the deceased was under employment and only on the instructions of his employer, he shifted the load from the lorry belonging to his owner to another lorry and was escorting the goods and therefore, he is definitely under the course of employment and the objection of Insurance Company cannot be sustained. The lower authority has rightly accepted the claim of the parents of the deceased and the objection of Insurance Company is not at all tenable. For these reasons, I am of that view that appeal is devoid of merits. 15. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed but no costs. As a sequel to the disposal of this appeal, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.