JUDGMENT : As despite repeated calls, none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, they are proceeded against ex parte. 2. By way of this appeal, the Insurance Company has challenged award dated 20.03.2010, passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation Act-Cum-S.D.O.(Civil), Churah, Distt. Chamba (H.P.)., in Case No.02 of 2006, titled Smt. Savitri Devi & others Versus Shri Ramesh Kumar & another, in terms whereof while allowing the claim petition preferred by the claimants under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, learned Commissioner has awarded an amount of Rs.5,44,919/- in favour of the claimants. This appeal was admitted on 13.10.2011 on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the learned Commissioner has gravely erred in holding that there was casual connection between the accident and the employment of the deceased? 2. Whether the learned Commissioner has gravely erred in directing the appellant to pay penalty in its failure to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the passing of the award ?” 3. I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and have gone through the record of the case as well as the award under challenge. 4. Record demonstrates that an application for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was filed by the petitioner i.e. the private respondent herein, on the ground that husband of petitioner No.1 father of petitioners No.2 to 4 and son of petitioner No.5, namely, Mahinder Kumar was a workman, employed by respondent Ramesh Kumar. He was engaged as a driver and in the course of his employment, Mahinder Kumar died in between 10.07.2005 and 11.07.2005, while he was on duty of the respondent/employer at Lakhanpur Border, Jammu & Kashmir. According to the petitioners, on 10.07.2005, at around 9:00 p.m., deceased who was driving the vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-55-A-2346 from Srinagar to Pathankot, had reached at Lakhanpur Check Post/Barrier. There he stopped/ stayed to get his vehicle cleared. However, thereafter, the deceased went missing and his body was recovered in Kashmir Canal near Lakhanpur barrier on 16,07.2005. Deceased Mahinder Kumar died due to drowning in the Canal, which accident arose in the course of his employment. Thereafter, a rapat was duly lodged to this effect at Police Station, Lakhanpur. The petitioners being dependent upon deceased-Mahinder Kumar were entitled for compensation and accordingly, a prayer was made to compensate them to the tune of Rs.6,17,850/-. Deceased Mahinder Kumar died due to drowning in the Canal, which accident arose in the course of his employment. Thereafter, a rapat was duly lodged to this effect at Police Station, Lakhanpur. The petitioners being dependent upon deceased-Mahinder Kumar were entitled for compensation and accordingly, a prayer was made to compensate them to the tune of Rs.6,17,850/-. Record demonstrates that initially the Insurance Company was not impleaded as a party before the learned Commissioner, but subsequently it stood impleded as such. 5. The petition was resisted by respondent No.1, therein inter alia, on the ground that though Mahinder Kumar was engaged by him on contract basis to ply the vehicle in lieu of payment of Rs.125/- per day and that the deceased was driving the vehicle from Srinagar to Pathankot and had stopped for the purpose of clearance at Lakhanpur Barrier. But as per the said respondent, on the fateful night, Mahinder Kumar without the permission of the respondent and without giving any intimation to the staff of another vehicle left the vehicle unattended alongwith his father and on the next morning, driver of other vehicle informed the respondent about the abandoning of the vehicle by Mahinder. In lieu of said act and conduct of deceased-Mahinder, the stand of respondent/employer was that it could not be said that Mahinder was performing the job under the direction of the employer. 6. The petition was resisted by the Insurance Company, inter alia, on the ground that as the dead body of the deceased allegedly found on 18.07.2005 in Kashmir Canal due to drowning, which could not be termed as an accident happening in the course of employment, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the claimants on behalf of the employer. Further it was denied that the claimants were entitled for the claim as prayed for by them. The Insurance Company also took the stand that the deceased had not met with the accident while driving the truck and therefore, the unfortunate death was not an act arising in the course of employment of deceased. 7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Commissioner framed the following issues: “1. Whether the deceased Shri Mohinder Kumar died during the Course of his employment? 2. If issue No.2 is proved in affirmative whether the applicants are entitled for amount of Compensation as payment for? 3. 7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Commissioner framed the following issues: “1. Whether the deceased Shri Mohinder Kumar died during the Course of his employment? 2. If issue No.2 is proved in affirmative whether the applicants are entitled for amount of Compensation as payment for? 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? 4. Whether the applicants have got no cause of action and locus Standi to file the present petition? 5. Whether the applicants have not come to the Court with clean hands? 6. Whether the Driver was not having valid and effective license at the time of accident?” 8. On the basis of the evidence which was led by the parties to prove their respective contentions, the issues so framed were decided as under: “ISSUE NO.1 Yes. ISSUE NO.2 Yes. ISSUE NO.3 No. ISSUE NO.4 No. ISSUE NO.5 Yes. ISSUE NO.6 No. RELIEF: Allowed.” 9. Learned Commissioner, thus allowed the claim petition by awarding an amount of Rs.5,44,919/- in favour of the claimants. Learned Commissioner by holding that the vehicle in issue was found to be duly insured by the appellant/Insurance Company, further ordered that the compensation amount shall be paid by the appellant/ Insurance Company. 10. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 11. The substantial questions of law, on which the appeal has been admitted, have already been quoted hereinabove. 12. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the impugned award is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reasons that perusal thereof demonstrates that it is a cryptic award which has been passed by the learned Commissioner without any due application of mind. Learned Senior counsel also submitted that the findings which have been arrived at by the learned Commissioner are without any foundation. There is no discussion of the respective stand of the parties in the impugned award and the conclusion is bereft of any reason as to how said conclusion has been arrived at by the learned Commissioner. Learned Senior counsel further submits that neither the evidence has been properly appreciated nor properly referred to in the award so as to justify the conclusions which have been arrived at by the learned Commissioner. Accordingly, a prayer has been made that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned award be set aside. 13. Learned Senior counsel further submits that neither the evidence has been properly appreciated nor properly referred to in the award so as to justify the conclusions which have been arrived at by the learned Commissioner. Accordingly, a prayer has been made that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned award be set aside. 13. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, this Court concurs with the submissions so made by him. 14. As already mentioned hereinabove, on the basis of pleadings, six issues were framed by the learned Commissioner. While answering Issue No.1, all that the learned Commissioner has held is that as respondent No.1 himself admitted in his reply that the deceased workman was engaged by him as a driver to ply his vehicle and further as respondent No.1, i.e. the employer had admitted that deceased had died in Kashmir Canal due to drowning, which is an incident arising out in the course of his employment, therefore, the death of Mahinder took place in the course of employment. 15. The findings which have been so recorded by the learned Commissioner in considered view of this Court cannot be upheld for the following reasons:- Section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, inter alia, provides that if personal injury is caused to a workman by an accident arising out or in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter-II of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. There is not much dispute as far as this fact is concerned that the death of deceased did not take place on account of any accident of the vehicle concerned. In fact, it is the very case of the claimants that after deceased-Mahinder parked his vehicle at Lakhanpur Barrier on the fateful night at 9:00 p.m. to get same cleared, he went missing and thereafter his dead body was recovered on 16.07.2005 from the Kashmir Canal near Lakhanpur Barrier. The reply, which has been filed by the respondent before learned Commissioner, they have specifically taken the stand that in the given circumstances in which death of Mahinder took place, it could not be said that he died in the course of his employment. This point has neither been touched upon by the learned Commissioner nor adjudicated upon. The reply, which has been filed by the respondent before learned Commissioner, they have specifically taken the stand that in the given circumstances in which death of Mahinder took place, it could not be said that he died in the course of his employment. This point has neither been touched upon by the learned Commissioner nor adjudicated upon. By simply stating that as respondent No.1 before it had admitted that Mahinder was engaged as a Driver by him, this Court is of the considered view that, duty cast upon the learned Commissioner to have adjudicated this point, more so for the reason that Issue No.1 framed by it was to this effect only could not be said to have been duly discharged by it. Learned Commissioner was bound to have had returned findings in this regard by referring to the circumstances in which the dead body of Mahinder was found, which has not been done. 16. Therefore, the appeal in fact is liable to be allowed on this count alone as the learned Commissioner indeed erred in holding that there was a connection between the death of deceased and his employment without actually assigning any reason as to how this finding was arrived at by the learned Commissioner. 17. Accordingly, present appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned award but as this Court is of the considered view that this point still needs to be answered by the learned Commissioner in light of the issues which have been framed by the said Court it will be in the interest of justice, in case the matter is remanded back to the learned Commissioner, with the direction that the same be decided afresh on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence which already stands led by the parties before it and with further direction that the learned Commissioner shall dispose of the claim petition by passing a reasoned and a speaking order. Ordered accordingly. 18. As the claim petition was filed before the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation Act-Cum-S.D.O.(Civil), Churah, Distt. Chamba (H.P.). therefore, the case is ordered to be transferred to the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation/ Civil Judge, who is having jurisdiction over the area upon which at the time when the claim petition was decided, the jurisdiction was being exercised by Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil). As the claim petition was filed before the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation Act-Cum-S.D.O.(Civil), Churah, Distt. Chamba (H.P.). therefore, the case is ordered to be transferred to the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation/ Civil Judge, who is having jurisdiction over the area upon which at the time when the claim petition was decided, the jurisdiction was being exercised by Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil). Award amount deposited by the appellant is ordered to be released in favour of the appellant with up-to-date interest. 19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.