JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Division-2, Bijapur in WC No. 103/2009. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred with their ranks held before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. 3. The claimants No. 1 and 2 filed claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bijapur claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of Amol Gunda son of claimant No. 1 and husband of claimant No. 2 which according to claimants occurred in the course of his employment. It is stated that the deceased Amol Gunda was working as driver under respondent No. 1 in his auto bearing No. MH-13-G-4327 on a salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month and Bhatta of Rs. 50/- per day. On 21.04.2009 on the instructions of respondent No. 1, the deceased was on duty in the said auto rickshaw. When he was proceeding near Indian Oil Corporation, on Pakani-Mohal road in the night hours, it is alleged that he did not give side to a jeep coming from rear side, therefore, the inmates of the jeep stopped the deceased and assaulted him causing his death. Therefore, the deceased was murdered by the inmates of the jeep. The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of death. Solapur Police have registered a case in Cr. No. 100/2009 in respect of the said incident and the death of the deceased. The claimants who were fully depending on the income of the deceased have lost their bread earner, thereby they were put to much hardship. Respondent No. 2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle and that the incident has taken place during the course of his employment. Therefore, they claimed compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 remained absent and they were placed ex-parte. Respondent No. 2 insurer appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition. He has denied that the incident has taken place in the course of employment of the deceased, but it is a case of murder and as such, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. He has also disputed that the alleged incident has taken place in the course of employment of the deceased under respondent No. 1. He has denied that the incident has taken place in the course of employment of the deceased, but it is a case of murder and as such, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. He has also disputed that the alleged incident has taken place in the course of employment of the deceased under respondent No. 1. There is no nexus between the death of the deceased and his employment. Therefore, the claim petition is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed. 5. The learned Commissioner on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed issues. Claimant No. 2, wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1 and she has got marked 4 documents. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 got examined his Assistant Manager as RW-1 and produced two documents. The learned Commissioner after hearing both the parties passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs. 4,36,940/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from 10.10.2010. Respondent No. 2 insurer was directed to deposit the compensation amount. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the respondent No. 2 insurer is before this Court contending that the learned Commissioner has committed a grave error in fastening the liability on the appellant, as the claimants have not established that the deceased was employee engaged by the insured in connection with the auto. Admittedly, the wife of the deceased lodged a complaint that her husband was done to death. As such, the case of murder being converted into WC case only to claim compensation. It is a clear case of fraud being played on the Court. There was no relationship of employer and employee with respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and deceased. 7. While admitting the appeal, this Court has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: 1. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 4,36,940/- with 12% interest, when the claimants failed to prove the relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and owner of the vehicle? 2. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is justified in fastening the liability on the appellant, even though the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not been able to establish that the deceased was the employee engaged by insured in connection with the auto, when the wife of deceased has stated on oath that her husband was done to death? 3. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is justified in fastening the liability on the appellant, even though the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not been able to establish that the deceased was the employee engaged by insured in connection with the auto, when the wife of deceased has stated on oath that her husband was done to death? 3. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is justified in awarding the compensation for a sum of Rs. 4,36,940/- with 12% interest, when the murder of the deceased was taken place at Solapur in Maharashtra and he was resident of Pakani village of Solapur (Maharashtra), when the Commissioner has no jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923? 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer submitted that the claimants have not proved the jural relationship viz. that the deceased was employee under respondent No. 1 and that the alleged incident took place in the course of employment. The learned counsel further submitted that, admittedly the Police have filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 and other provisions of IPC, therefore, it is a case of murder and not an incident arising out of and during the course of employment. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on certain decisions in support of his argument. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the present appeal was dismissed and before it was restored, the claimants have withdrawn the compensation amount deposited by the appellant and as such, the appeal is not maintainable. The learned counsel further submitted that the murder of the deceased was taken place in the course of his employment and that the respondent No. 1 being the owner of the vehicle, the deceased was under his employment as driver. Therefore, the contention of the insurer cannot be accepted. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rita Devi and Others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others in Civil Appeal No. 3021/2000 and SLP (C) No. 17493 of 1998 decided on 27.04.2000. 10. Therefore, the contention of the insurer cannot be accepted. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rita Devi and Others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others in Civil Appeal No. 3021/2000 and SLP (C) No. 17493 of 1998 decided on 27.04.2000. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has also raised a question of jurisdiction of the Commissioner to entertain the claim petition in view of the fact that the murder of the deceased has taken place at Solapur in Maharashtra State. However, this aspect was not seriously contested before the learned Commissioner and no issue was framed in the claim petition as to the jurisdiction. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to entertain the claim petition cannot be accepted. Though the insurer has raised such a contention before the Commissioner in para-19 of the written statement, the jurisdiction of the Commissioner was not seriously disputed and no attempt was made by the insurer to get framed an issue on the question of jurisdiction. 11. The insurer has not raised a specific contention before the Commissioner as to the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. Therefore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Raichur vs. Suresha and Another in MFA No. 9804/2007 and other connected appeals decided on 25.08.2015 will not come to his aid. In that case, this Court considered the question of jurisdiction, ultimately the matter was remitted to Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raichur to decide the claim petition afresh in the light of the observations made therein. The facts in the said case goes to show that the claimants made a claim petition before the Commissioner at Raichur and the accident in question had occurred within the jurisdiction of Chitradurga. Under these circumstances, the contentions raised by the appellant-insurer before this Court regarding jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bijapur in entertaining the claim petition cannot be held against the claimants. It is seen from the record that the claimants have shown their residential address in the claim petition as residents of Dhobalegalli, Bijapur and claimant No. 2 who was examined before the Commissioner as PW-2 has deposed to this fact. It is seen from the record that the claimants have shown their residential address in the claim petition as residents of Dhobalegalli, Bijapur and claimant No. 2 who was examined before the Commissioner as PW-2 has deposed to this fact. In her cross-examination, there is no suggestion that she has furnished a false address of her residence at Bijapur. Therefore, the question of jurisdiction before this Court cannot be entertained. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly questioned the award passed by the Commissioner on the ground that the claimants have not proved the jural relationship between deceased and respondent No. 1 and that the alleged incident has taken place in the course of his employment. IN this regard, the learned counsel has relied on the decision in the case of Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Bijapur vs. Smt. Nirmala in MFA No. 6641/2005 decided on 27.11.2009. In the said case, this Court has considered the fact that the owner of the vehicle was resident of Gulbarga town and the deceased was resident of Khasageri Oni of Bijapur which is situated at a distance of 150 KMs. The claimants failed to produce any document to show that the deceased was working as driver under respondent No. 5 residing in other place. It is also held in that case that the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased was a driver by occupation. Under these circumstances, this Court has held that the claimants failed to prove the jural relationship. 13. In the present case, the claimants have pleaded and claimant No. 2 has deposed before the learned Commissioner that her husband was working as driver under respondent No. 1 in his auto rickshaw bearing No. MH-13-G-4327. It is not the case of the claimants that the case of murder being converted into a claim petition. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was murdered when he was driving the vehicle in the course of his employment. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on a decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Bangalore vs. Smt. N. Gangadevamma and Others, 2007 (3) T.A.C. 335 (Kant.). In the said case, this Court has considered the facts, which revealed that the death of the deceased was caused because of political rivalry. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on a decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Bangalore vs. Smt. N. Gangadevamma and Others, 2007 (3) T.A.C. 335 (Kant.). In the said case, this Court has considered the facts, which revealed that the death of the deceased was caused because of political rivalry. He was done to death and subsequently, the vehicle was implicated in order to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The facts in the present case are not so. On the other hand, it is an admitted case of the claimants that the deceased was done to death while he was on duty and therefore, the death was caused in the course of his employment. On this aspect, the learned counsel for the claimants has relied on the above referred decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The facts of the said case are similar to the case on hand. In that case, the deceased was employed to drive one auto rickshaw for ferrying passengers on hire and on the fateful day, the auto rickshaw was parked at the rickshaw stand at Dimapur and at about 5 to 6 p.m. some unknown passengers had engaged the said auto rickshaw for their journey towards Singrijan area and thereafter nothing was known of the driver or rickshaw. It is only on the next day that the authorities were able to recover the body of the deceased and the auto rickshaw in question was never traced till date. The owner of the auto rickshaw has, therefore, been compensated by the Insurance Company for the loss of the said auto rickshaw, therefore, the murder of the deceased Dasarath Singh squarely comes within the word ‘death’ due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle found in section 163A(1) of the Act. Consequently, the tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation claimed by the appellants. It was further held that the deceased being an employee was entitled for compensation both under the Motor Vehicles Act and also under Workmen’s Compensation Act. However, under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the heirs of the deceased had a choice either to claim compensation under that Act or under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 14. It was further held that the deceased being an employee was entitled for compensation both under the Motor Vehicles Act and also under Workmen’s Compensation Act. However, under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the heirs of the deceased had a choice either to claim compensation under that Act or under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 14. In the present case also, the incident in question occurred in the course of employment of the deceased and he was done to death for the reason that he failed to give side to the jeep coming from the rear side, as a result, the inmates of the jeep committed his murder. Under these circumstances, the death of the deceased has to be held as caused arising out of his employment and it is not a case of murder converted into a claim petition as contended by the insurer. This decision has been applied by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation in the impugned judgment and on the basis of this decision, the learned Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the death of the deceased occurred in the course of his employment. 15. The insurer has got examined his witness as RW-1 in support of his contention that respondent No. 1 was not the owner of the offending vehicle as on the date of incident and therefore, the deceased was not under his employment. RW-1 Sri K.M. Manjunath Swamy has deposed that the offending vehicle was duly insured with his company and the policy was issued in the name of Ambadas Sadashiv Survase i.e. respondent No. 1. He has further deposed that the said Ambadas has given a statement before the Police stating that he has sold the said vehicle on 28.04.2009 and has executed a bond. RW-1 has stated that they have got investigated the matter and as per the investigation, the said vehicle was sold by the respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 3. In his cross-examination, RW-1 has admitted that the insurance policy covered the risk of the driver. He has not produced a report of the investigation. There is no reason for non-production of the said report. In his cross-examination, RW-1 has admitted that the insurance policy covered the risk of the driver. He has not produced a report of the investigation. There is no reason for non-production of the said report. He has further admitted that the policy was issued in the name of respondent No. 1, but he has denied that as on the date of incident, respondent No. 1 was the owner of the said vehicle and that the deceased was under his employment. In the course of evidence RW-1, a xerox copy of the bond said to have been executed by respondent No. 1 Ambadas Sadashiva Survase was produced and though it is a xerox copy, it is marked as Ex.R.2. The contents of this document are not proved. The document is in Marathi language, its English translation is produced. This document reads that he purchased the tom-tom No. MH-13-G-4327 in the year 1999, he used the same till the year 2004. But in the year, 2004, he sold the said vehicle to one Amogh Solankar. But he has never transferred the said vehicle in the name of the purchaser and his name is continued in the records and in the permit of the said vehicle. Therefore, it cannot be held that the respondent No. 1 was not the owner of the said vehicle as on the date of incident. The incident in question occurred on 21.04.2009. If at all, respondent No. 1 had sold the said vehicle in the year 2004, the insurer would not have issued insurance policy in the year 2009 in the name of respondent No. 1. Admittedly, the insurance policy was issued in the name of respondent No. 1. Therefore, this document will not help the insurer to support his contention that respondent No. 1 was not the owner of the vehicle as on the date of incident and that the deceased was not under his employment. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the learned Commissioner failed to hold that the claimants have not proved the relationship of employee and employer between deceased and respondent No. 1 or that the Commissioner has committed grave error in fastening the liability on the appellant-insurer. Therefore, none of the contentions raised by the appellant deserve to be accepted. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, none of the contentions raised by the appellant deserve to be accepted. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the questions of law are answered accordingly and the appeal is dismissed.