JUDGMENT A.S.NAIDU, J. : The judgment dated 23rd July, 2003 passed by the in W.C.Case No.26 of 2000 before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Ganjam Berhampur is assailed in this appeal. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 had filed the aforesaid W.C.Case claiming compensation against the present appellant, who was a railway contractor, and the General Manager, South-Eastern Rail¬way, pro forma respondent No.3, for the death of their son Hiram¬ani Barika on 10th September, 1999 in an accident arising out and in course of his employment on 10th September, 1999 at about 3 p.m. 3. The short facts as have been averred in the claim petition filed before the W.C.Commissioner reveal that the appel¬lant was a railway contractor and was executing work under the S.E.Railway by engaging several workers/coolies one of whom was deceased Hiramani Barika. Hiramani was engaged as a coolie super¬visor. On 10th September, 1999 at about 3 p.m. while Hiramani was performing his duty as coolie supervisor, unfortunately he came under Howrah-Tirupati Express Train resulting his death at the spot. The fact of the said accident was informed to G.R.P, which registered U.D.G.R.Case No.217 of 1999, got the post mortem of the dead body conducted at the MKCG Medical College-Hospital at Berhampur. It was averred by the applicants that Hiramani was aged twenty-four years at the time of his accidental death and he was earning Rs.2100.00 per month as his wages. 4. The appellant as well as the pro forma respondent No.3 who were opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively in the W.C.Case after receiving notice filed their written statements. The appel¬lant took the stand that he was only a contractor under pro forma respondent No.3. He had neither employed Hiramani nor was he a workman under him. He further stated that he had no knowledge about the alleged accidental death and that he was not executing any work on the railway track at Rikapalli on loth September, 1999 where the alleged accidental death occurred. The pro forma respondent No.3 took the stand that the Rail¬way was not aware of the employment of the deceased by the rail¬way contractor and that as per the agreement the work had been entrusted to the appellant-contractor who had not submitted the list of his workers. The fact that the accident occurred on 10th September, 1999 in which Hiramani sustained injuries and died at the spot was denied. The fact that the accident occurred on 10th September, 1999 in which Hiramani sustained injuries and died at the spot was denied. On the other hand it was pleaded that Hiram¬ani died due to his own digligence and the applicants were not entitled to any compensation. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the W.C. Commissioner framed four issues. The applicants in order to substantiate their claim got two witnesses examined, one of whom was a co-worker of deceased Hiramani, and was an eye-witness to the accident, the other one being the mother of Hiramani. Apart from aforesaid oral evidence, certified copies of the FIR and Final Form submitted by police, the deadbody challan, inquest report and post mortem report were also filed to establish the fact that Hiramani died in an acci¬dent that occurred on 10th September, 1999 while he was perform¬ing his duty due to the running over of Howrah-Tirupati Express Train. The appellant-contractor got himself examined as a witness to substantiate his plea. 6. After discussing the oral and documentary evidence threadbare, the W.C.Commissioner came to the conclusion that in fact Hiramani was engaged by the appellant-contractor as his worker. He was a coolie supervisor. He was giving signals to all passing trains by showing red-flag as the construction work of railway track was going on. It was further observed that there was a bend/curve on the railway track at a distance of 15 to 20' from the place where the accident occurred and the place of work was not visible from a distance as a result of which the train suddenly rushed in and ran over Hiramani while he was showing red-flag and he died at the spot. The Commissioner concluded that Hiramani was engaged as a supervisor by the appellant-contractor and he died in the accident in course of his employment. Relying on the documentary evidence, he further held that the deceased was a workman and the applicants were entitled to compensation for his death. The Commissioner concluded that Hiramani was engaged as a supervisor by the appellant-contractor and he died in the accident in course of his employment. Relying on the documentary evidence, he further held that the deceased was a workman and the applicants were entitled to compensation for his death. The appellant or the S.E.Railway having adduced no evidence nor produced details with regard to the names of the workmen and wages paid to them, relying upon the evidence of the P.Ws that the deceased was earning Rs.2,100.00 per month, the Commissioner accepted the income of the deceased as Rs.2,100,00 per month and accepting the age of the deceased as indicated in the post mortem report, awarded a compensation of Rs.2,32,439.00 directing S.E.Railway, pro forma respondent No.3, to pay the same in conso¬nance with the agreement entered into between it and the appel¬lant, and realize the same from the appellant, and that if the same amount of compensation was not paid to the applicants within month from the date of the judgment, 50% penalty with 12% inter¬est on the compensation amount from the date of filing of the W.C.Case, i.e. 31.3.2000, would be payable to the applicants. The judgment is not challenged by the Railway. 7. The judgment of the W.C.Commissioner is assailed in this appeal by the contractor mainly on the ground that the W.C.Commissioner did not properly appreciate the materials on record and acted illegally in coming to the conclusion that Hiramani was engaged as a worker by the appellant. It was argued that the averments made in the written statement of the appellant were not considered and even otherwise the assessment of age and income of the deceased was not proper. According to the appellant even police papers revealed that the deceased was standing on a different railway track and not the place where the accident allegedly occurred and this fact having not been considered by the W.C.Commissioner the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 8. All the submissions of the appellant are strongly repudiated by the learned counsel for the applicants. He stated that the initial burden to prove that the deceased was a workman of the appellant-contractor had been discharged by the applicants by getting two witnesses examined. 8. All the submissions of the appellant are strongly repudiated by the learned counsel for the applicants. He stated that the initial burden to prove that the deceased was a workman of the appellant-contractor had been discharged by the applicants by getting two witnesses examined. That apart, the FIR, police requisition for post mortem of the deadbody and other documents clearly revealed that the accidental death occurred while the deceased was ‘engaged’ in his duty in relation to repair of the railway track. The General Manager, S.E.Railway in his statement candidly admitted that the deceased was in fact working under the appellant-contractor in connection with repair of railway track and that in consonance with the agreement the appellant was liable to pay the compensation, if any. 9. It appears that P.W.2 who was examined as a co-worker of the deceased clearly stated that Hiramani was working as a coolie supervisor under the appellant-contractor. He stated that he was working as a labourer under the appellant four months prior to the accidental death of Hiramani. Hiramani was working as a supervisor since two years prior to the date of the acciden¬tal death. P.W.2 stated that he was present at the spot when the accident occurred and being an eye-witness he gave graphic de¬tails of the accident. He had been examined by police during investigation. Though P.W.2 was cross-examined at length, nothing could be elicited from his statement to discredit him. The appellant got himself examined as O.P.W.1. He stated that he was maintaining a wage register, but then he did not produce the said register before the W.C.Court. He admitted that he was a railway contractor for the last twelve years and that he had taken tenders for repair work. He neither produced any vouch¬er nor any material to show the workmen engaged by him or that the deceased was not a workman under him and was an imposter. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials available. Law is well settled that an appeal preferred under Section 30 of the W.C. Act is maintainable only on substantial question of law. The provision of the said section clearly stipulates that no appeal shall lie without any substantial question of law. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials available. Law is well settled that an appeal preferred under Section 30 of the W.C. Act is maintainable only on substantial question of law. The provision of the said section clearly stipulates that no appeal shall lie without any substantial question of law. That apart, to attract the provi¬sions of the W.C.Act it is incumbent upon the claimant to satisfy the Court that the accident arose out of and in course of employ¬ment. The words “IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT” mean in course of work for which the workman was employed. The words “ARISING OUT OF THE EMPLOYMENT” mean in course of the work which the workman is employed to perform and which is incidental to it. The words “ARISING OUT OF THE EMPLOYMENT” further mean that during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman, would not otherwise have suffered. Thus there must be a nexus and casual relationship between the accident and the em¬ployment. If the accident which occurred on account of risk which is an incidence of employment, the claim of compensation must succeed. Unless of course the workman exposed himself to impru¬dent act. 11. In the case of Lancashire and Yorkshire Rly. Co. v. Highley, 1917 AC 352, Lord Summer held: “There is, however, in my opinion, one test which is always at any rate applicable, because it arises upon the very words of the Statute, and it is generally of some real assistance. It is this: Was it part of the injured person’s employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do that which caused his injury ? If yes, the accident arose out of his employment. If any, it did not, because what it was not part of the employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do, cannot well be the cause of an accident arising out of the employment. If yes, the accident arose out of his employment. If any, it did not, because what it was not part of the employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do, cannot well be the cause of an accident arising out of the employment. To ask if the cause of this was within the sphere of the employment or was one of the ordinary risks of the employ¬ment, or reasonably incidental to the employment or conversely, was an added peril and outside the sphere of the employment, are all different ways of asking whether it was a part of his employ¬ment, that the workman should have acted as he was acting, or should have been in the position in which he was, whereby in the course of that employment he sustained injury.” In the touch-stone of the aforesaid principles, the present case is considered. The pleadings of the parties inter se lead to an irresistible conclusion that in fact the appellant as a con¬tractor was executing the repair work of the railway track. The evidence of P.W.2, a co-worker of the deceased and eye-witness to the accident establishes beyond all reasonable doubts that the deceased was engaged by the appellant as his worker on the date and at the time of the accidental death. His evidence also unerr¬ingly establishes that the accidental death arose out of and in course of employment of the deceased. The police papers viz. the FIR, inquest report, U.D./G.R.Case records coupled with post mor¬tem report corroborate the aforesaid fact. Considering all these materials the W.C.Commissioner arrived at the conclusion that the accidental death arose out of and in course of employment of the deceased. The said conclusion being purely a finding of fact and as the reasonings given by the Commissioner are neither perverse nor are based on misinterpretation of evidence, the impugned judgment calls for no interference by this Court. 12. The only other question that needs to be considered by this Court is with regard to the quantum of compensation as it is well settled that the compensation should always be just and proper and not a bonanza. In the case at hand, absolutely no material has been produced with regard to income of the deceased. It appears that there is also some discrepancy with regard to the age of the deceased. In the case at hand, absolutely no material has been produced with regard to income of the deceased. It appears that there is also some discrepancy with regard to the age of the deceased. Considering the entire facts and circum¬stances, this Court in a spirit of Lok Adalat, feels that a compensation of Rs.2,00,000.00 to the applicant-respondents instead of Rs.2,32,439.00 as awarded by the W.C.Commissioner would be just and adequate, and directs accordingly. This Court sets aside the direction of the W.C.Commissioner for payment of 50% penalty and default interest at the rate of 12%. It is submitted that the entire compensation amount awarded by the W.C.Commissioner is lying in deposit with the Commission¬er. This Court therefore directs that out of the said deposit, a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 as awarded by this judgment with propor¬tionate interest accrued thereon, if any, be disbursed to the applicant-respondents forthwith on proper identification and the balance amount with proportionate interest be returned to the appellant. The FAO is accordingly disposed of. FAO disposed of.