JUDGMENT : Nandita Dubey, J. Heard. 2. This misc. appeal is directed against the order dated 13.05.2014, passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act cum Labour Court, Rewa in case No.45/WCA/12, whereby the claim of appellants was dismissed. 3. Appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.7,18,496/- on account of death of her deceased husband Chandrabali Singh. It was the case of claimants that deceased, who was engaged as a driver in M.P. Vidyut Mandal Company Ltd. Jabalpur was made to work on the direction of respondent No.3 and while getting down from the stairs, he collided with the beam and received injuries in the head. He was initially admitted in Primary Health Centre, Sirmour and then referred to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Rewa and later to Apex Hospital, Jabalpur, where he succumbed to his injuries on 10.05.2011. 4. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed their written statements stating that the deceased was working in 'B' shift and directed to wear the helmet. Deceased himself was responsible for the accident as he did not wear the helmet and slipped while getting down from stairs. It was also denied that the death was due to the head injuries. The claim commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act dismissed the claim of the appellants/claimants relying on the statement of respondents that the deceased had wilfully disregarded the instructions to wear the helmet provided for securing the safety of the deceased and for the reason that post mortem report and the police report was not filed to show that death occurred due to the injuries received on 04.05.2011. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that Commissioner has illegally rejected the claim of the appellants/claimants on irrelevant grounds. It is urged by him that the Commissioner had overlooked the medical report as well as the evidence on record. 6. On the other hand, Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/company supported the order passed by the Commissioner. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. From a perusal of the pleadings and careful examination of the evidence on record, it is evident that the deceased was engaged as a driver in Sirmour Power house and earning Rs.32,000/- per month. Ex. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. From a perusal of the pleadings and careful examination of the evidence on record, it is evident that the deceased was engaged as a driver in Sirmour Power house and earning Rs.32,000/- per month. Ex. P-7, letter dated 23.05.2011 by respondent No.2 reflects that deceased, who was a driver received grievous injuries, while on duty at CW Floor, PP shed, during B-shift. It was deposed by respondent No.3 Shri Arun Kumar Mishra, Executive Engineer, Sirmour that deceased was working in B shift at PP shed where all the workers were directed to wear helmet. 9. Admittedly, deceased was engaged as a vehicle driver, and as a driver, he was not required to wear helmet. There is no evidence or proof that helmet was ever issued to the deceased nor there is any justification as to why the deceased, who was engaged to drive a motor vehicle was made to work in B shift in electric department when he was specifically engaged on the post of vehicle driver. Learned Commissioner ignored the medical prescription (Ex. P-3) that clearly shows that the deceased had bluish discoloration and swelling around right eye and having headache and vomiting due to the accident. Death certificate (Ex. P-4) mentioned immediate cause of death as cardio respiratory arrest which was the result of coronary sinus thrombosis. Legal and medical dictionary Vol. II defines ' thrombosis' as local coagulation of blood in the heart arteries, veins or capillaries, causing obstruction in circulation of blood. 10. In the medical prescription filed along with, it is clear that blood coagulation/clot happened due to head injury for which x-ray skull and CT scan, head and brain was also advised. The head injury sustained by the deceased ultimately led to his death. 11. From the afore stated, it is clear that deceased died due to the injury occurred during the course of employment, hence entitled to compensation as per Section 4 and 4(a) of the Employee Compensation Act, 1923. 12. As per the notification dated 31.05.2010, the amount of wages for the purposes of calculation of compensation is Rs.8,000/- per month. The deceased was admittedly 50 years of age, hence as per Section 4 of the Act, the respondents are liable to pay Rs. 12. As per the notification dated 31.05.2010, the amount of wages for the purposes of calculation of compensation is Rs.8,000/- per month. The deceased was admittedly 50 years of age, hence as per Section 4 of the Act, the respondents are liable to pay Rs. 6,12,360/- (4,000/- x 153.09) along with 12% interest from the date of filing of petition along with Rs.1,00,000/- as penalty. 13. Resultantly, the order passed by the Commissioner is set aside. 14. This appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein above.