JUDGMENT : S.N. Satyanarayana, J. The second respondent-insurer in WCA No. 81/2009 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bijapur, has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and award dated 15-4-2010 passed therein. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that,- Husband of claimant No. 1 and father of claimant No. 2 and son of claimant Nos.3 and 4 namely, Motilal alias Motiram Chavan who was working as driver in Tractor bearing registration No. MH-10-9475 belonging to respondent No.1 in the said proceeding met with an accident on 7-4-2009 at about 12.30. While he was driving the said vehicle towards District Primary Health Centre of Rathnagiri situated near Wandri, he stopped the vehicle for drinking water, during which time, a stone fell down on his head resulting in his death on the same day at about 2.00 p.m. Hence, claim petition was filed seeking compensation for his death on the premise that his death has occurred in the course of his employment with the first respondent as driver of tractor bearing registration No. MH-10/9475. In the proceedings before the Commissioner, after conducting enquiry, by recording the evidence of both the parties, the claim petition was allowed awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,33,820/- payable with interest at 12% per annum. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the second respondent-insurer has come up in this appeal impugning the same on the ground that the death of Motilal cannot be attributed to the injuries sustained in the course of the accident while using the vehicle and that there is no nexus between the cause for the death and the vehicle in which he was working as driver at the relevant point of time and to substantiate the same, he relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 721 : AIR 2009 SC 2019 and also the unreported judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The Divisional Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Renuka and others in MFA No. 31715/2009 disposed of by judgment dated 30-4-2014 and also another judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mamtaj Bi Bapusab Nadaf and others v. United India Assurance Co. and others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 536 : 2010 AIR SCW 5872. 4. By relying on the aforesaid judgments, appellant's counsel tried to draw support to this appeal on the ground that the policy which is issued in the instant case is a policy under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where it would cover the injuries sustained or death resulting in direct use of the vehicle which are caused while vehicle is in direct use in connection with the accident and the injuries caused to the deceased or injured and therefore, in the instant case, there is no nexus between the vehicle and death of Motilal which is due to falling of stone, the same cannot be considered as the accident attributable to the use of vehicle and therefore, the claim petition which is filed as against the insurer is required to be dismissed and the insurance company should be exonerated from paying the compensation. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 rely upon the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Manju Sarkar and another v. Mobish Miah and others, reported in 2014 AIAR (Civil) 807, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court under similar circumstances has distinguished the facts in such a way that when once the employee proceeded with the vehicle in the course of his employment even though the policy is under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if in the course of employment, he suffers any injury, the same should be considered as injury arising out of the employment and as such, he can maintain the petition seeking compensation. If the said judgment is understood in the light of the policy which is issued by the appellant-insurance company in this proceeding, the policy would indicate that additional premium of Rs. 75/- is collected in the instant case to cover the liability of three employee s under Workmen's Compensation Act. In that view of the matter, even if it is taken in the sense in which it is canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant, additional premium already being there, the involvement of the vehicle in causing the death cannot be denied, inasmuch as, at the relevant time of accident, the fact that Motilal was working as driver in the said tractor is not at all in dispute in the present case. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that the liability fastened on the insurance company is substantiated by the finding recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manju Sarkar at paragraph-9, which reads as under. "9. According to the appellants, Sajal Sarkar on reaching Dharmanagar noticed some mechanical trouble in the truck and he got down to make arrangements for repairing the same and in the night he met with an accident Churaibari FCI godown is located in Dharmanagar. The Courts below have rejected the claim petition on the ground that there is contradiction in the claimants case since there was no mention of mechanical defect in the truck in the First Information Report. What is relevant is as to whether Sajal Sarkar continued to be in course of employment under respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at the time of sustaining injuries in the accident culminating in his death. Sajal Sarkar was at Churaibari, Dharmanagar only on account of his employment as driver of the truck and there he met with the road accident." 7. In view of aforesaid observations made therein, this Court holds that no grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment rendered by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, in saddling the liability to pay compensation on the appellant-insurer. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 8. In view of the appeal filed by the appellant-insurer being disposed of, the amount in deposit is ordered to be sent to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basavana Bagewadi, to whom the jurisdiction of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bijapur, is assigned.