ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The appellant insurance company has preferred this misc. appeal challenging the impugned award dated 26.6.2001 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Sirohi in Claim Case No. WC/F/10/2000. 3. Brief facts as noticed by this Court are that the deceased Jamat Singh, husband of the respondent No. 1, was the driver of the respondent No. 2. Deceased Jamat Singh along with the owner's family and owner - respondent No. 2 were going for darshan to Jeenmata Temple at Sikar on 23.10.1999 in Jeep No. RJ 24C 1019. On 24.10.1999, at about 6 O' clock in the morning, an unknown truck collided with the said jeep near Bagru. Jamat Singh suffered various injuries and ultimately died. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award is contrary to law. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Jamat Singh was not driving the jeep in question. In fact, in the FIR as well as other reports of the accident, the name of driver was shown as Basant Kumar. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Jamat Singh was at best travelling in the capacity of a passenger and even if he was appointed as a driver, then also at the relevant time, he was not driving the jeep. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Premlata Shukla reported in 2007 ACJ 1928 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the details given in the FIR were the conclusive of the facts and could not be changed subsequently by way of oral evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, however, submits that by statements recorded before the learned authority below, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Jamat Singh was in employment as driver of the respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt and is not refuted by the appellant that the death of Jamat Singh occurred on account of the accident between the jeep owned by the respondent No. 2 and the truck. The designated driver Jamat Singh was travelling in the same jeep, may be not actually driving at that time. The designated driver Jamat Singh was travelling in the same jeep, may be not actually driving at that time. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manju Sarkar and others. vs. Mabish Miah and others reported in 2014 ACJ 1927 , relevant paras 10 and 11 whereof read as follows:- "10. This Court has in the celebrated decision in General Manager B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay vs. Mrs. Agnes ( AIR 1964 SC 193 ] laid down as follows: "Under Section 3(1) of the Act the injury must be caused to the workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The question, when does an employment begin and when does it cease, depends upon the facts of each case. But the Courts have agreed that the employment does not necessarily end when the "down tool" signal is given or when the workman leaves the actual workshop where he is working. There is a notional extension at both the entry and exit by time and space. The scope of such extension must necessarily depend on the circumstances of a given case. As employment may end or may begin not only when the employee begins to work or leaves his tools but also when he used the means of access and, egress to and from the place of employment." 11. As rightly contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellants there is a notional extension in the present case also and we would, therefore, hold that Sajal Sarkar met with the road accident in the course of his employment under respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The Courts below have misdirected themselves while dealing with this question and the finding rendered by them is perverse and unsustainable." Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 thus submits that even if there was a notional extension of the work by the driver as laid down in the aforementioned precedent law, then the driver while going to take the truck back, met with the accident, was given the benefit of Workmen's Compensation Act. 6. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court finds that it is an undisputed fact that the accident happened between the jeep and truck on 24.10.1999; it is undisputed that the accident caused the death of Jamat Singh; it is also undisputed that Jamat Singh was husband of the respondent No. 1 and driver of the respondent No. 2. The area of conflict is whether the driver Jamat Singh was driving the jeep at the relevant time or not to which if the submissions of the appellant's counsel are found to be correct, then also by virtue of precedent law of Manju Sarkar (supra), it becomes clear that once the respondents have been able to establish the death arising out of the said accident and also that Jamat Singh was under employment of the respondent No. 2 as a driver, then he shall be entitled to the compensation in notional extension of the employment. No interference is called for in the impugned award. 7. In light of the above, the present appeal, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. All pending applications stand dismissed.