JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Claimants in case No.1 of 2005, instituted under Section 22 of Workmen’s Compensation Act are in appeal before this Court as they are aggrieved from the Order dated 31.1.2006 passed by learned Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Sub Divisional Magistrate), Nalagarh, District Solan, whereby the petition they preferred has been dismissed on the ground that they failed to produce the evidence to the effect that their predecessor-in-interest Nirmal Singh died on account of exposer ultimately turned into high fever on account of driving the truck without its windscreen. Also that postmortem report has not been produced in evidence. 2. As per the case admitted by respondent No.1, the owner of truck No.HP13-9377, deceased Nirmal Singh was employed as driver by her on the monthly wages of Rs.4,000/-. Besides this, additionally a sum of Rs.100/- was being paid to him towards the daily allowance. He, therefore, was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. He drove the truck with consignment loaded therein from Nalagarh to Calcutta on 24.11.2003. He delivered the consignment at Calcutta on 27.11.2003. On way back, he loaded the truck from Cuysum-Giri Factory in Orissa to Paonta Sahib. When he was driving the truck within the territory of State of Bihar, some miscreants pelted stones thereon and as a result thereof windscreen of the truck got damaged being fully broken. The deceased driver has reported the incident to Amrik Singh, the husband of respondent No.1 and owner of the truck. Said Shri Amrik Singh, told the deceased to drive the truck in that condition itself and also that the windscreen will be replaced and other damage caused to the truck will be repaired at Nalagarh. He followed the instructions of said Shri Amrik Singh and brought the truck while driving the same without windscreen to Paonta Sahib on 3.12.2003. He unloaded the consignment at Paonta Sahib and brought the truck to Nalagarh where he reached at 9.00 p.m. He reached his native place at 11.00 p.m. At that time he was suffering from high fever. He was not even in a condition to speak. In the morning of 4.12.2003, his condition deteriorated considerably and before any medical aid could be provided to him, he died. 3. He was not even in a condition to speak. In the morning of 4.12.2003, his condition deteriorated considerably and before any medical aid could be provided to him, he died. 3. The compensation has been sought to be awarded on the ground that on account of driving the truck without windscreen, he was exposed to stress and strain and fell ill. The exposer resulted in high fever and before anything could be done to provide medical aid to him; he left for his heavenly abode. The cremation was also attended by the husband of respondent-owner. At the time of his death he allegedly was 31 years of age. 4. Respondent No.1-owner has not denied the allegations in the petition and rather admitted the same to be true and correct. The insurance-respondent No.2 has not disputed the insurance of the truck, however, it was claimed that the insurer-respondent No.1 has never lodged any claim with respondent No.2 under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It has also been submitted that the obligations of insurer is only to indemnify the insurance and that too when any liability is fastened upon it legally. It was also claimed that the deceased driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence nor died while discharging his duties as driver. The story that he had driven the truck with broken windscreen is stated to be manipulated. The petition has, therefore, been sought to be dismissed. 5. On such pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the deceased Nirmal Singh was employed as Workmen by respondent No.1 in her truck No.HP12-9377? OPP 2. Whether deceased Nirmal Singh died due to injuries/disease during the course of employment on date 4.12.2003 as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act? OPP 4. Whether the deceased Shri Nirmal Singh was not holding valid and effective licence, if so its effect? OPR No.2. 5. Whether the petitioner is incollusion between petitioner and respondent No.2, if so its effects? OPR No.2. 6. The parties on both sides have produced the evidence and learned Commissioner below on appreciation of the same has dismissed the petition on the sole ground that without postmortem report or any medical certificate, it cannot be said that deceased Nirmal Singh died during the course of his employment. OPR No.2. 6. The parties on both sides have produced the evidence and learned Commissioner below on appreciation of the same has dismissed the petition on the sole ground that without postmortem report or any medical certificate, it cannot be said that deceased Nirmal Singh died during the course of his employment. It is this order, which is under challenge in this appeal on the ground that the same is neither legally nor factually sustainable. 7. On hearing learned counsel on both sides and going through the evidence available on record, ultimately the windscreen of truck being driven by the deceased got broken on account of pelting of stones by some miscreants in the State of Bihar. The owner of the truck has also not disputed the instructions given to the deceased to drive the truck to the destination in the same condition. He, therefore, had no option except to obey the instructions of his employer. The truck reached at the destination on 3.12.2003 after unloading, it was driven by the deceased to the place of owner-respondent No.1 at Nalagarh. It is thereafter he went to his native place and as per the version of petitioner No.1, his widow, he was suffering from high fever at that time. Similar is the version of PW-2, Pawan Kumar and PW-3 Shri Durga Chand. The owner-respondent No.1 has not told anything contrary to the version of the petitioners’ witnesses and rather supported their version of on all material aspects. 8. Now if coming to the statement of RW-1 Ashish Arora, Assistant Administrative Officer, National Insurance Company, he has admitted that the truck was duly insured with respondent No.2. As per his version, the owner never informed respondent No.2 about the death of driver of the truck. The owner has also not claimed own damages. Nothing, however, has been said by RW-1 about the effectiveness and validity of the driving licence. Rather issue No.4, in this regard, was not pressed during the course of arguments. 9. On analyzing the evidence as has come on record, it would not be improper to conclude that Nirmal Singh was the driver of truck No.HP12-9377. He went with a consignment loaded in the truck from Nalagarh to Calcutta. After delivering the consignment on its destination, on way back, he loaded another consignment from Cuysum-Giri Factory in Orissa to Paonta Sahib. On analyzing the evidence as has come on record, it would not be improper to conclude that Nirmal Singh was the driver of truck No.HP12-9377. He went with a consignment loaded in the truck from Nalagarh to Calcutta. After delivering the consignment on its destination, on way back, he loaded another consignment from Cuysum-Giri Factory in Orissa to Paonta Sahib. It is also established that the windscreen was broken by some miscreants, when he was driving the truck in the territory of State of Bihar and the owner instructed him to drive it in the same condition to the destination. The deceased had followed the instructions so given and drove the truck from Bihar to Paonta Sahib without their being any windscreen. Being month of December, the winter season has already commenced, which caused exposer and as a result thereof the deceased suffered high fever. He reached at his native place late in the midnight on 3.12.2003. Before, he could be taken to hospital for medical checkup on the following morning, he died. 10. The dismissal of the petition on the ground that there is no direct evidence qua death of deceased during the course of discharge of his duties are neither legally nor factually sustainable. As a matter of fact, there was direct nexus between the high fever from which the deceased driver was suffering and also discharge of his duties. In a similar set of facts and circumstances, our own High Court in National Insurance Company versus Smt. Gurmeeto and Others, Latest HLJ 2006 (HP) 33, has held that the death of deceased driver occurred on account of stress and strain on account of driving the truck without windscreen during the course of his employment. The point in issue, therefore, is squarely covered in favour of the appellants-petitioners herein. 11. Now if coming to the question of award of compensation to the claimants-appellants, as per evidence, the date of birth certificate of the deceased Ex.PW-1/A being 14.11.1972, he was 31 years of age at the time of his death. There is admission on the part of respondent No.1-insured that he was being paid his wages @Rs.4,000/- per month and in addition to that Rs.100/- was being paid to him towards daily allowance. This Court, however, is taking his income as Rs.4,000/- per month. There is admission on the part of respondent No.1-insured that he was being paid his wages @Rs.4,000/- per month and in addition to that Rs.100/- was being paid to him towards daily allowance. This Court, however, is taking his income as Rs.4,000/- per month. In view of the age of the deceased as 31 years, the relevant factor in calculation of the compensation would be Rs.205.95. 12. Now calculating the compensation payable to the petitioners-claimants with the formula provided under Section 4 of the Act, it is only 50% of the wages to be taken into consideration. The compensation payable, therefore, would be 205.95 x 4000 x 50/100, which comes to Rs.4,11,900/- together with interest @12% per annum, under Section 4-A of the Act, which shall be charged after one month from the date of death of deceased Nirmal Singh. Respondent No.2-insurer is liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioner, however, the penalty @10% on the awarded amount is imposed upon the owner of the truck, respondent No.1-insured. There shall be a direction to respondent No.2-insurer to deposit the amount together with interest upto date within two months. 13. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the appeal succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.