Judgment :- The appeal is preferred by the employer against the order dated 21.02.2006 pass in W.C.No.166 of 2005 by the Deputy Commissioner for Workmens Compensation/ Deputy Commissioner of Labour No.2, Chennai-6. By consent, the appeal is taken up for final hearing on the following question of law. a) Whether the learned Commissioner has failed to note that the claim petition is not maintainable under law as well as on fact? b) Whether the learned Commissioner has failed to note that there was no evidence on record to establish that the deceased was employed as a cleaner and the learned Commissioner has failed to note that there was no Master and servant relationship but vehicles was managed by father and son together for the benefit of the family? c) Whether the learned Commissioner has failed to note that the Ist opposite party co-owner of the lorry had not produced trip sheet, ledger, and or lorry must roll to prove that the deceased was employed as a cleaner and he was paid a salary of Rs.4,500/-per month which is a deliberate attempt to convert a fall into a wind fall? d) Whether the learned Commissioner has erred in not appreciating that there was no evidence regarding the alleged payment made to the deceased, and in the absence of the same, the learned Commissioner ought to have invoked the minimum wages payable to a cleaner following the ruling of the Divisional Bench reported in 2004 TNMAC 66.? 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: A lorry bearing Registration No.TN-22-B-8620 owned by one K. Mohan/fifth respondent herein. The said lorry was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. The said lorry was parked near Govindapuram lake at Vaniyampadi on 14.02.2005 at about 04.45 p.m. The deceased one M. Thanikachalam was the cleaner. While he was applying grease to the wheels and other parts under the lorry, the driver of the lorry moved in reverse and ran over the deceased. Due to the same, the deceased died on the spot. The claimants are mother, minor brothers and minor sister. They claimed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation before the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II), Chennai. The said lorry was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company resisted the claim. On pleadings the Commissioner framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the deceased was employee considered to be under the Workmens Compensation Act? They claimed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation before the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II), Chennai. The said lorry was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company resisted the claim. On pleadings the Commissioner framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the deceased was employee considered to be under the Workmens Compensation Act? If so, the death was in the course of the employment. 2. What is the compensation, the claimant is entitled to? 3. Who is liable to pay the compensation? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has come to the conclusion that the accident had only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,50,440/-and the details of the same are as under:- Age of the injured at the time of incident ==> 19 years Relevant factors ==> Rs.225.22 Monthly salary ==> Rs.4,000/- Therefore loss of income ==> 50/100 x 225/22 x 4000 = Rs.4,50,440/- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 3. Both the counsel submitted that they have agreed for consolidated compensation of a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- as against Rs.4,50,440/-awarded by the Deputy Commissioner. Further, they also pointed out that the deceased was outside the vehicle and hence, he should be treated as a third party. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to claim compensation under Motor Vehicles Act. Also, both the counsel requested that, since it is too in the day to remand the matter to the concerned forum, this matter may be taken up and award may be passed under the Motor Vehicles Act. Taking into consideration of the above facts and circumstances, monthly income fixed at Rs.2,500/- and annual income works out Rs.30,000/-. Out of the said amount, 1/3rd is deducted towards his personal expenses i.e. Rs.10,000/- and balance amount of Rs.20,000/- is taken towards his contribution to the family. Since the age of the deceased at 19 years at the time of the accident, 13 multiplier is adopted. Therefore,the loss of income is calculated as follows; Rs.20,000 x 13 = Rs.2,60,000/- Hence, the loss of income is hereby fixed at Rs.2,60,000/-. Further, it is hereby awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards conventional damages. The total compensation arrived at Rs.2,85,000/- with interest 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. Therefore,the loss of income is calculated as follows; Rs.20,000 x 13 = Rs.2,60,000/- Hence, the loss of income is hereby fixed at Rs.2,60,000/-. Further, it is hereby awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards conventional damages. The total compensation arrived at Rs.2,85,000/- with interest 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. Both the counsel agreed that the share of the claimants may be apportioned in the following manner; For the first respondent => Rs.2,00,000/- For the second respondent => Rs.25,000/- For the third respondent => Rs.35,000/- For the fourth respondent => Rs.25,000/- 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that already entire award amount has been deposited. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that they have already withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- and he further stated that the second and third claimants are attained majority. Under these circumstances, the first, second, third claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares along with accrued interest thereon as apportioned above, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, on making proper application. In respect of the fourth claimant share who is a minor, the Tribunal is directed to deposit the same in the fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years and renewable thereof till he attains the majority. The first claimant/mother of the deceased is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued in the deposit of the fourth claimants share once in three months on making proper application. The appellant-Insurance Company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application. 5. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.