Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Award of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, in W.C. No. 294 of 1998, dated 22. 2002 awarding compensation of Rs.28,796/- . 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The Respondent/ Claimant was employed as Reeling Machine Operator in Sri Vinayaka Spinning Mills belonging to the Appellants/opposite parties. During the course of her employment, on 211. 1996 at about 9.30 a.m. when she was correcting the belt which was running the machine, she sustained fracture of both bones in the left leg. She was taken to Critical Care Centre Hospital, Ammapet Main Road, Salem for treatment by the employer. The Respondent/ Claimant had taken treatment as inpatient till 1. 1997 and thereafter she continued to take treatment as out patient. Due to the accident, she suffered disability of 20%. Claiming compensation of Rs.1 lakh, the Respondent/Claimant has filed the claim application before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem. 3. Denying the averments and employment of the Claimant as Reeling Machine Operator, the Appellants/ opposite paries contested the claim application. The Appellants/opposite parties also raised the plea that the daily wages of Rs.25/-claimed by the Respondent is on the higher side. 4. To substantiate her claim, the Respondent/ Claimant has examined herself as P.W.1 and one Valli as P.W.2 and Dr.Rajamanickam was examined as P.W.3. Exs. P1 and P2 were marked. On the side of the Respondent/Management R.W.1 was examined and Exs. R1 to R3 were marked. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the Claimant sustained injuries during the course of her employment and on the basis of the evidence of P.W.3 Dr. Rajamanickam, the learned Commissioner held that the Claimant suffered 20% permanent disability. Fixing her wage as Rs.35/- per day, the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs.28,796/-. 5. Challenging the impugned award, Mr. P.Mathivanan, learned counsel for the Appellants/Employer has submitted that the Respondent was not at all employed as Reeling Machine Operator. He has also submitted that to show that the Respondent/Claimant was not employed, the Appellant has produced Ex.R3 Attendance Register and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour erred in brushing aside the oral and documentary evidence adduced onbehalf of the Appellant/Employer. P.Mathivanan, learned counsel for the Appellants/Employer has submitted that the Respondent was not at all employed as Reeling Machine Operator. He has also submitted that to show that the Respondent/Claimant was not employed, the Appellant has produced Ex.R3 Attendance Register and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour erred in brushing aside the oral and documentary evidence adduced onbehalf of the Appellant/Employer. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant and erred in fixing the daily wages at Rs.35/- and the compensation awarded is on the higher side. 6. Drawing the attention of the Court to the documentary evidence, the learned counsel for the Respondent/ claimant has submitted that the Respondent has examined coworker Valli to show her employment with the Appellant-Mill. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submitted that based upon the prevailing wages, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly fixed the wage at Rs.35/-per day and the impugned award does not suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference. 7. The civil miscellaneous appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- .(i) Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the Appellants are liable to pay compensation to the Respondent in the absence of any documentary evidence? .(ii) Whether the Tribunal is correct in placing burden on the Appellants are to prove the accident? (iii) Whether the Tribunal is correct in accepting the oral evidence of the Respondent, which is contrary to the pleadings of the Respondent and based on the above said oral evidence the Tribunal granted award to the Respondent? (iv) Whether the tribunal is correct in awarding compensation to the Respondent herein, without determining the loss of earning capacity? 8. The Appellants main defence is denial of the employment of the Respondent. To prove that the Claimant/Respondent was employed with the Appellant-Mill, the Respondent/Claimant has examined herself as P.W.1. That apart, the co-worker Valli was examined as P.W.2. Based on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly held that the Respondent/Claimant was employed with the Appellant-Mill. 9. To substantiate their pleading that the Respondent/ Claimant was not at all employed with the appellant Mill, the employer has produced Ex.R3 Attendance Register to show that the name of the Respondent/Claimant was not found in the Attendance Register. 1 and 2, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly held that the Respondent/Claimant was employed with the Appellant-Mill. 9. To substantiate their pleading that the Respondent/ Claimant was not at all employed with the appellant Mill, the employer has produced Ex.R3 Attendance Register to show that the name of the Respondent/Claimant was not found in the Attendance Register. As rightly observed by the learned Commissioner, since the Respondent/ Claimant was a minor, her name might have not been entered in the Attendance Register. In the absence of entry in the Attendance Register, the constant evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be doubted. If the Respondent/ Claimant was not so actually employed, nothing prevented the Appellant – Management from examining any of the co-workers. But that was not done by the Appellant/Management. 10. Learned counsel for the Appellant/ Management has contended that the Deputy Commissioner has erred in fixing the daily wages at Rs.35/- based on the interested oral evidence of the Respondent/ claimant. The Respondent/ Claimant was employed by the Appellant-Mill as Reeling Machine Operator. Based on her evidence, the learned Commissioner has fixed the daily wage at Rs.35/-. When P.W.1 has stated that her daily wage is Rs.35/-, there is no reason to doubt the same. It is relevant to note that the Appellant/Management has not produced any acceptable evidence showing that the daily wages for a Reeling Machine Operator is less than Rs.35/-. In the absence of any such evidence, the Deputy Commissioner, who is quite aware of the prevailing rate of wages in and around the locality, has accepted the evidence of P.W.1 and recorded factual finding that the salary is Rs.35/- per day and the same cannot be interfered with. 11. The Respondent/Claimants age was fixed at 14 years. P.W. 3-Dr.Rajamanickam has assessed the disability at 20% . At the very young age, the Respondent/ Claimant has suffered bone fracture and has become permanently disabled. Having regard to the age and the nature of the injuries sustained by the Respondent/ Claimant, the amount of compensation of Rs.28,796/- awarded by the Commissioner cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. In fact, the compensation awarded is a paltry sum. This appeal is bereft of merits and is bound to fail. 12. Having regard to the age and the nature of the injuries sustained by the Respondent/ Claimant, the amount of compensation of Rs.28,796/- awarded by the Commissioner cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. In fact, the compensation awarded is a paltry sum. This appeal is bereft of merits and is bound to fail. 12. In the result, the award of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, passed in W.C.No. 294 of 1998, dated 22.02.2002 is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with costs. The Deputy Commissioner for Labour, Salem is directed to disburse the compensation amount along with accrued interest on necessary application being made by the Respondent/Claimant.