Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the award determining compensation payable to the respondent No. 2- workman on account of injury received by him in the course of his employment. 2. The non-petitioner No. 2 has filed a claim before the Commissioner of Workman Compensation against the petitioner alleging that he was employed under him as Chowkidar. While he was so employed, in the night intervening 09.02.1989, some thieves entered the premises and when he resisted, some stones were thrown to him as a result of which injury was suffered and he lost his right eye. He stated in his application the amount of compensation to be at Rs. 4,200/-. 3. Prior to filing this application before the Workman Compensation Commissioner, the said Loona Ram has served a notice through his Advocate dated 24.05.1989. The Workman Compensation Commissioner made an award of compensation of Rs. 13,058.40 to be paid to the workman. This was founded on the premise that the applicant has received permanent injury on account of loss of right eye and the compensation was computed as per Item No. 26 in Schedule I and by applying the formula as per the admitted salary payable to the claimant. 4. Two fold contentions have been raised before the Court by the petitioner. Firstly, that Suresh Babu was essentially not the employer because the contract under which Loona Ram was appointed was in the name of his father Shri Manak Chand Deedwania, and, therefore, he was not his employer and the second contention is that since the applicant has claimed only Rs. 4,200/-as compensation under the Workman Compensation Act, the Compensation Commissioner could not have allowed more compensation than what has been claimed by the applicant. 5. Both the contentions in my opinion are not well founded. As per the documents produced by the petitioner and notice served on the petitioner Suresh Kumar Deedwania S/o Manak Chand Deedwania, Contractor, M.E.S. Contractor, Rasala Road, Jodhpur alleging that while he was working under him at the rate of Rs. 480/- per month, he received injury as aforesaid in the night intervening 09-10.02.1989 and he referred to medical expenses incurred by him. In fact, in the notice, the applicant has claimed only Rs. 3,000/-by way of compensation as reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him and for reinstatement. 480/- per month, he received injury as aforesaid in the night intervening 09-10.02.1989 and he referred to medical expenses incurred by him. In fact, in the notice, the applicant has claimed only Rs. 3,000/-by way of compensation as reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him and for reinstatement. In reply to the aforesaid notice through his Counsel, the petitioner has admitted that Loona Ram was his employee as Chowkidar and was getting Rs. 480/-. It was also admitted that on 02.02.1989 Loona Ram was working as Chowkidar in M.E.S. Area but has said that the incident was caused because the Chowdkidar in drunken stage went away from his place of posting and he received injury out of his place of posting, and, therefore, the employer cannot be held responsible. 6. In view of the clear admission made by the petitioner in reply to the notice received from the respondent No. 2 through his Counsel, the first contention that he was not the employer of the workman cannot be accepted. Apparently, the petitioner Suresh Kumar Deedwania S/o Manak Chand Deedwania, who now claims to be not the true employer did fall in the definition of employer under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923 under Clause (f) as managing agent which means any person appointed or acting as the representative of another person for the purpose of carrying on such other persons trade or business. It is not even the case of the petitioner now that he was totally unconnected with the contract of MES of his father of which he is alleged to be contractor. In support of the same he has produced a copy of grant of contract issued by MES. 7. Firstly, in view of the clear admission this plea cannot be allowed to be raised by the petitioner. Moreover, the definition of employer given in Section 2(e) if read with definition defining "managing agent" under Section 2(f) it is apparent that the petitioner Suresh Kumar is S/o Manak Chand Deewania in whose favour the contract appears to have been granted coupled with fact that he has accepted himself to be the employer vide Annexure-7 clearly suggesting that even if he was not the contractor, he was carrying on business of the father at his place himself . He has not explained his admission in Annexure-7 in any convincing manner. 8. He has not explained his admission in Annexure-7 in any convincing manner. 8. The second contention is also not well founded about the amount of compensation. 9. The employers liability for compensation in the case of personal injury caused to a workman during the course of employment is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Chapter II as per Section 3 of the Act, the application for which lies before the Workman Compensation Commissioner and the amount of compensation is to be as per the provision mentioned in Section 4 read with schedule. It is not the case of the petitioner that the amount determined by Workman Compensation Commissioner is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 10. On the sole finding that the employee has suffered permanent disability because of loss of eye which has reduced his earning capacity, the liability arise to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II and does not depend merely on the highest claim or lower claim made by the workman. The workman may in the absence of proper knowledge claim lesser compensation. It is manifest from the fact that notwithstanding having clearly established that the workman has suffered permanent loss of one eye, the workman has not led any claim on that premises but has merely asked for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him. 11. The exception to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1923 under Sub-section (5) of Section 3 is that if an agreement has been arrived at between the workman and his employer providing for the payment of compensation in respect of the injury in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Apparently, Clause (b) of Sub-section (5) of Section 3 is founded on an agreement having reached between the employer and the employee providing compensation under the agreement. But in the present case, on the contrary, the employer has denied his liability to pay compensation under the Act at all. He cannot take the advantage of Clause (b) of Sub-section (5) of Section 3 to restrict the claim of the workman only to the extent he has stated in his notice or in the application. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim order is vacated. 13. He cannot take the advantage of Clause (b) of Sub-section (5) of Section 3 to restrict the claim of the workman only to the extent he has stated in his notice or in the application. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim order is vacated. 13. Since, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents, there shall be no order as to costs.