JUDGMENT : Venugopal, J.—This appeal coming on for hearing on Thursday the 25th day of October, 1979 and on this day and upon perusing the petition of appeal the order of the lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K.S. Narasimhan, advocate for the Appellant and of Mr. P.M. Sundaram, advocate for the 2nd Respondent and the first Respondent not appearing in person or by advocate, the Court made the following order. 2 On 12.2.1976 at about 2 a.m. the deceased Samiah Thevar who was working as a cleaner died while he was on duty and the widow of the deceased filed a petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, claiming a compensation of Rs. 18,000/-. The Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai held that Samiah Thevar was a workman u/s 2(1)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the accident arose out of and in the course of the deceased's employment and the employer, viz., the owner of the lorry is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. The insurer who was impleaded as opposite party No. 2 before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation contended that under the Workmen's Compensation Act, no decree can be passed against the insurer. The contention was negatived and the Commissioner directed both the owner of the lorry as well as the insurance company to pay the compensation. Aggrieved against the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, the insurance company has filed this appeal before this Court. 3. It is contended for the Appellant insurance company that under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the Commissioner is not competent to pass an order directing the insurance company to pay compensation to the Petitioner. In support of this contention, learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in R.B. Moondra and Co. Vs. Mst. Bhanwari and Another, decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in The Oriental Fire and General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Govind Singh and Others, Both the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the Appellant have laid down that under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass an award against the insurance company and the Act imposes liability only on the employer. Co. Ltd. Vs. Govind Singh and Others, Both the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the Appellant have laid down that under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass an award against the insurance company and the Act imposes liability only on the employer. In view of these two decisions referred to supra, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is accepted and the order of the Commissioner directing the insurance company to pay compensation to the Petitioner is deleted and is substituted by an order directing the owner, the second Respondent herein, to pay the compensation to the first Respondent (Petitioner before the Commissioner). 4. learned Counsel for the Appellant next contended that u/s 2(m), the definition of 'Wages' excludes traveling allowance or the value of any travelling concession and as the evidence of P.W. 1 shows that the deceased was getting Rs. 77/- as wages besides Rs. 100/- to 120/- as batta, the batta paid to the deceased should be excluded in computing the quantum of wages received by the deceased and if so excluded, the compensation payable under the Fourth Schedule would only come to Rs. 9,720/- and the award passed by the Commissioner should be reduced from Rs. 16,800/- to Rs. 9,720/-. No doubt, P.W. 1 in her evidence has stated that her husband was receiving Rs. 77/- as wages besides Rs. 100/- as batta, there is no evidence to show that the sum of Rs. 100/- paid as batta was really paid in lieu of travelling allowance or it represents the value of any travelling concession. In the absence of clear evidence to show that the batta paid to the deceased represents the travelling allowance or represents the value of any travelling concession, there is no justification for excluding from wages of the deceased the batta paid to him. So, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the batta paid should be excluded while computing the wages of the deceased cannot be accepted. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No costs. 5. The Appellant is entitled to withdraw the amount, if any, deposited towards payment of compensation to the Petitioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act.