JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. The matter comes up for consideration of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay of 3 days in filing the present appeal. 2. As per the office report the notice of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been served upon the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7. Mr. Ramesh Purohit has filed power on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Manish Pitaliya on behalf of respondent No. 7. Learned counsel Mr. Ramesh Purohit is appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 also. Hence, service of notice of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act upon the respondents is completed. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The delay of 3 days in filing present appeal is condoned. 4. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 5. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 04.12.2014 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bhilwara (for short the court below) in claim Case No. ECA/F-100/2011 whereby it has directed the appellant and respondent No. 7 to pay a compensation of Rs. 8,39,680/- to the respondent No. 1 to 5 along with interest at the rate of 12% from 28.06.2011. Court below has also directed the respondent No. 7 to deposit penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the court. 6. The court below after meticulously examining the evidence produced on behalf of the parties has held that the claimant has proved that the deceased was employed as driver on the car of respondent No. 7 and he was getting Rs. 8,000/- p.m. as salary. The court below has also observed that the claimants have sufficiently proved that the deceased had received injuries in an accident while driving the car of the respondent No. 7 and later on succumbed to the said injuries. The court below has observed that the appellant insurance company has failed to rebut the evidence of the claimants to the effect that the deceased was employed as driver on the car of the respondent No. 7, which was insured with the insurance company and he died during the course of employment in an accident. The court below has observed that the appellant insurance company has failed to rebut the evidence of the claimants to the effect that the deceased was employed as driver on the car of the respondent No. 7, which was insured with the insurance company and he died during the course of employment in an accident. The trial court has also observed that the claimants have proved that the deceased was getting Rs. 8,000/- p.m. as salary from the respondent No. 7 and the appellant insurance company had not rebutted the said evidence. After going through the impugned award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bhilwara. I do not find any illegality in the same. 7. Hence, this civil misc. appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.