JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged order dated 30.03.2009, passed by learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Chamba, District Chamba in Case No. 12/Compen/2008, titled as Smt. Hanifa and another Vs. Ajaj Mohd. and another, vide which, an application filed by the petitioners therein under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, stood allowed by the learned Commissioner by holding that the petitioners were entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.403200/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of accident for one year and with further direction to the present appellant to deposit the amount within 30 days of the order, failing which, the appellant was held liable to pay penalty at the rate of 25% of the total compensation amount assessed by the learned Commissioner. 2. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether in view of the terms and conditions of the policy issued in favour of respondent No. 3, which only covered the risk resulting from the accident within the site of working of NHPC Stage-III Dharwala, i.e., the site of the civil work and whether the work of loading saria/construction material on tractor from the site would come within the definition of civil work as per the terms and conditions of the policy? (ii) Whether the appellant is liable to pay interest? (iii) Whether the respondent No 2 has proved the deceased to be workman & covered under the terms & conditions of the policy?" 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has addressed this Court on substantial question of law No. 3 primarily and has argued that the order passed by the learned Commissioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as while passing the impugned order, learned Commissioner erred in holding that the deceased was covered under the Insurance Policy which was executed by the employer with the Insurance Company. He has argued that a perusal of the Insurance Policy, which is duly exhibited, demonstrates that the site of accident where unfortunately the deceased workman lost his life, was not covered under the Policy. On this account, he has prayed that the order passed by the learned Court below is bad and is liable to be quashed and set aside. No other point was urged. 4. On this account, he has prayed that the order passed by the learned Court below is bad and is liable to be quashed and set aside. No other point was urged. 4. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the impugned order as well as evidence on record. 5. Claimants had approached the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act on account of death of Shri Yunis Khan @ Yunis Deen, who was an employee of Contractor Ajaj Mohd. and who lost his life on 01.04.2008 purportedly in the course of his employment. It is not in dispute that the accident in which Yunis Khan lost his life had taken place at Rugri Nala near Dam site Bagga, Tehsil & District Chamba. Deceased received injuries on account of said accident, which resulted in his death. The accident took place when the deceased was travelling in a vehicle alongwith the construction material. 6. The Insurance Policy which stood entered between the appellant and the employer is on record as Ex. RW1/A. A perusal of the contents thereof demonstrates that Shri Ajaj Mohd., Government Contractor was the insured person. Description of risk covered demonstrates that it was with regard to four labourers and one Mason working at NHPC Stage-III, Dharwala, engaged with civil works. 7. As I have already mentioned hereinabove, it is not in dispute that the deceased did not lose his life in the course of execution of civil work at the site, qua which risk was covered under the Insurance Policy. Unfortunately, he lost his life in an accident involving a vehicle, in which he was travelling alongwith the construction material. 8. A perusal of order dated 30.03.2009 passed by learned Commissioner demonstrates that though an issue was framed as to whether the deceased died during the course of his employment or not, however, while answering this issue alongwith other issues, learned Commissioner has not at all discussed the contents of the Insurance Policy and how death of the workman on account of an accident of the Tractor, which resulted in the drowning of the deceased, was covered under the Policy. The only finding returned by the Commissioner is that Ex. The only finding returned by the Commissioner is that Ex. P-1, FIR dated 01.04.2008 demonstrates that it was mentioned therein that the deceased was on work with the Contractor on the fateful day and was travelling in the ill-fated Tractor with the construction material. However, as I have already mentioned above, there is no finding returned by the learned Commissioner as to whether the Insurance Policy either covered such an accident and whether such an eventuality was also covered under the Insurance Policy. On the other hand, in my considered view, the mode and manner in which the deceased lost his life was unfortunately not covered by the Insurance Policy. The risk covered by the Insurance Policy was with regard to the workmen mentioned therein and risk covered was in the course of performing civil works at the site in question. It is neither the case of the petitioners/claimants nor the Contractor that the workman lost his life while performing civil works at the work site. Therefore, as the death of the workman occurred on account of an accident involving a Tractor, may be which was carrying the construction material, this ipso facto does not covers the incident under the Insurance Policy in issue. Thus, there is merit in the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that learned Commissioner has erred in holding that the accident was covered by the Insurance Policy. The relevant substantial question of law is answered accordingly and in view of above findings, other substantial questions of law were neither agitated nor they are being answered. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed by holding that order dated 30.03.2009, passed by learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Chamba in Case No. 12/Compen/08, to the extent that order, as passed by the learned Commissioner, is maintained by holding that liability to pay, if any, is that of the Contractor. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.