Judgment :- 1. It is the case of the Respondents/Claimants that the deceased was employed by the Fifth Respondent herein, M. Far Constructions Private Limited, Chennai as a Coolie. On 13.4.2006, at about 10.30 hours, when he was unloading the sand bags from the fourth floor, he fell down through the gap in between the hoist unloading ramp and scaffolding pipe to the ground floor at the project site of “The Pacific City” at Chennai, under the sub contract of Mr. G. Appanna, who was engaged by the first opposite party. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and was immediately rushed to Government General Hospital, Chennai for treatment. But he died on the same day. 2. A case was registered in T-4, Madhuravayal Police Station, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai vide FIR No.613 of 2006, dated 13.4.2006. Wife and children claimed compensation of `7,00,000/-. The Appellant/Insurance Company denied the manner of accident and its liability. It was further contended that the accident occurred purely due to the negligence of the deceased, that he did not wear safety gadgets like helmet and safety belt, disobeying the orders of his employer and the rules and conditions. It was further contended that on the fateful day, 87 workers were engaged in the construction work, whereas the Fifth Respondent/first opposite party had taken an Insurance Policy which covers only 15 workers, resulting in violation of the Policy condition. The Appellant contended that they cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay compensation. The First Respondent, wife was examined as CW.1 and she reiterated the averments made in the claim. Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P2-Copy of Insurance Policy, Ex.P3-Post Mortem Report, Ex.P4-Death Certificate and Ex.P5-Legal Heir Certificate were marked on the side of the Claimants. On behalf of the Appellant/Insurance Company, a private investigator was examined as Ex.R1-Authorization letter, Ex.R2-Investigator Report and Ex.R3-Muster Roll were marked on the side of the opposite party. One Mr. S. Jayaraman was examined on behalf of the first opposite party. 3. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, found that the deceased was employed with the first opposite party/Fifth Respondent in this Appeal of the fateful day. As the Insurance Policy-Ex.P2 covered 20 un-named workers, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation held that Appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 3. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, found that the deceased was employed with the first opposite party/Fifth Respondent in this Appeal of the fateful day. As the Insurance Policy-Ex.P2 covered 20 un-named workers, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation held that Appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. Fixing the monthly income of the deceased at `4,000/- as per G.O.(2D) No.19, Labour and Employment Department, dated 20.5.2004 and having regard to the age of the deceased, he has arrived the dependency compensation at `3,68,340/-. In addition to that, as per Workmen Compensation Act, a sum of `2,500/- has been awarded for Funeral Expenses and altogether awarded `3,70,840/- as Compensation to the Respondents/Claimants. Being aggrieved by the finding, fastening the liability on the Insurance Company, the present Appeal has been filed. 4. Assailing the correctness of the award made under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the lower Court has erred in fastening the liability on the Insurer, in a case, where the number of Workmen covered under the Policy of Insurance was lesser than those actually working with insured at the time of accident. He further contended that when 87 persons have worked on the day of accident, as per the Attendance Register maintained for the month of April 2006, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation ought to have considered that there has been a suppression of material fact and in such circumstances, the Appellant/Insurance Company ought to have been exonerated. 5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and perused the materials available on record. 6. Before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, CW.1-Wife of the deceased has reiterated the manner of accident and she has further deposed that on the fateful day, her husband was employed as construction Worker with the first opposite party/Fifth Respondent in this Appeal, and he was insured with the Appellant as per Ex.P2-Insurance Policy. Admittedly, there was no dispute regarding the relationship of employer and employee, at the time of accident. The only dispute raised by the Appellant/Insurance Company is that on the fateful day, about 87 persons were employed as construction workers contrary to the terms and conditions of the Policy. It is not in dispute that Ex.P2-Policy covers 20 un-named male workers. Even in the cross-examination, Mr. The only dispute raised by the Appellant/Insurance Company is that on the fateful day, about 87 persons were employed as construction workers contrary to the terms and conditions of the Policy. It is not in dispute that Ex.P2-Policy covers 20 un-named male workers. Even in the cross-examination, Mr. S. Jayaraman who was examined on behalf of the Appellant/Insurance Company has candidly admitted that the Policy covers 20 male workers. It is to be noted that even assuming that more than 20 persons have worked on the fateful day, Ex.P2-Policy covers 20 un-named male workers and therefore, the Appellant/Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the first opposite party/Fifth Respondent in this Appeal. 7. The contention that more than number of persons have worked on the day of accident and therefore, the Appellant/Insurance Company cannot be fastened with the liability to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased employee is misconceived. Such a contention can be raised, only if more than 20 persons claim compensation. In any event, if the Policy covers 20 unnamed workers, and any unnamed worker who sustains injury or succumbs to death on account of injuries sustained, arising out of and during the course of employment, the dependants have to be paid the compensation by the Insurance Company as per the Policy condition. The contention that there has been suppression of fact and therefore the Appellant/Insurance Company cannot be fastened with the liability also cannot be accepted for the reason, that even assuming there is suppression, that would not disentitle the claim of the dependants of an unnamed worker, who comes within the 20 persons covered under the Policy. In these circumstances, there is categorical finding that the deceased was employed under the first opposite party/Fifth Respondent, and when the Ex.P2-Insurance Policy covers 20 un-named male workers, the Appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. No other points have been urged in this Appeal. 8. In these circumstances, the award is confirmed and the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.