Judgment :- 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the order dated 31.10.2003 passed in W.C.No.20 of 2001 by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation,(Deputy Commissioner for Labour), Coonoor. 2. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: i) Whether the finding of the lower Court that there was an accident suffered by the deceased or she died due to the same is not perverse in the absence of any FIR, Post Mortem or mention of accident in the medical records of treatment of the deceased? ii) Whether the finding of the lower Court that the deceased met with an accident is not perverse in view of the clear mention in the medical records of past history of natural disease for which she was admitted and treated? iii) Whether the lower Court has not erred in holding that there was accident in the absence of any statutory record such as First Information Report, notice to employer or other records? 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The wife of the first claimant viz., Kalaivani died in the accident on 17.6.2000. The said Kalaivani was working in Burnside Estate, Kotagiri, as a permanent worker for the past 15 years. On 10.6.2000, while she was carrying tea leaf bag, she was slipped and fell down along with the tea bag and sustained injuries. Further it is stated that she was admitted in Burnside Estate Hospital for treatment. Later, she was referred to K.M.F.Hospital, Kotagiri on 12.6.2000. After treatment, she died on 17.6.2000. Further it is stated that the claimants are the husband and the children of the deceased Kalaivani. Before the Deputy Commissioner, the claimants claimed a sum of Rs.1,91,424/-. The Insurance Company, who resisted the claim and stated that the deceased has never worked in the factory and also there was no accident and she died only due to the removal of uterus. Therefore, they are not liable to pay the compensation. On pleadings the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor framed the following issues:- " 1.Whether the deceased Kalaivani was worker under the Workmens Compensation Act? 2. Whether she died in the course of her employment under the fifth respondent Management? 3. What is the compensation the claimants are entitled to? 4. Who has to pay compensation? On pleadings the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor framed the following issues:- " 1.Whether the deceased Kalaivani was worker under the Workmens Compensation Act? 2. Whether she died in the course of her employment under the fifth respondent Management? 3. What is the compensation the claimants are entitled to? 4. Who has to pay compensation? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor held that the deceased Kalaivani was the worker under the fifth respondent Management and the accident had occurred during the course of her employment and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,99,400/-with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition. The details of the award of compensation are as under: Rs.2000 x 50/100 x 199.40 = Rs.1,99,400/-. Aggrieved by that award, the Insurance company has filed the present appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance company contended that the deceased was never employed in the fifth respondent Management and also there was no accident took on that day. The deceased was admitted in K.M.F.Hospital and surgery was done for removal of uterus and due to some complications, she died on 17.6.2000. There is no correlation between the death and the alleged accident. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Further it is stated that neither the discharge summary and nor the first information report was filed and it is pertinent to note that no post mortem was conducted. Further it was contended that the amount awarded by the Deputy Commissioner is excessive, exorbitant and also without basis and justification and that, therefore, the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the correct conclusion that there was a employer-employee relationship between the fifth respondent and the deceased and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order passed by the Commissioner is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents available on record. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. Hence the order passed by the Commissioner is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents available on record. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. Ex P1 is the Salary certificate for the month of February of P.W2 viz., Selvaraj; Ex P2 is the Salary certificate for the month of September of P.W3 Robert; and Ex P3 is the letter dated 10.6.2000 given by the Supervisor Robert to the Burnside Estate Manager regarding the accident occurred to the deceased Kalaivani. On the side of the Insurance company, Dr. T.S.Subramaniam was examined as R.W.1 and marked Exs R1 to R5. Ex R1 is the consent letter given by the K.M.F.Hospital authority prior to the operation; Ex R2 is the Surgical Case sheet of K.M.F.Hospital dated 15.6.2000; Ex R3 is the K.M.F. Hospitals treatment report; Ex R4 is the case history of Mrs.Kalaivani; Ex R5 is the Insurance Policy. It is pertinent to note that neither the discharge summery nor the first information report was filed. Further, there is no postmortem report was filed. Only the documents marked by the claimants are salary certificates. Ex R2 Surgical case sheet dated 15.6.2000 of K.M.F. Hospital reveals that the nature of accident and also the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and also how she was treated and how the said accident caused death. On the side of the claimants, there is a total lack of documents on record, but whereas on the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, it is very clear that the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 12.6.2000 and on 13.6.2000, surgery was conducted in the hospital for removal of uterus and due to further development, the deceased died on 17.6.2000. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour disregarded the documents filed on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company, simply relied on the oral evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2, came to a conclusion that there was an accident and the deceased sustained injuries and died due to the said injury. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour disregarded the documents filed on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company, simply relied on the oral evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2, came to a conclusion that there was an accident and the deceased sustained injuries and died due to the said injury. There is no dispute that the deceased was admitted in K.M.F.Hospital for quite some time, which was evidenced by the prior medical records and the deceased had been thoroughly examined by K.M.F. Hospital authorities at Kotagiri and after conducting several tests, the K.M.F.Authorities on 2.5.2000 had diagnosed that Mrs. Kalaivani was suffering from Fibroid Uterus, which is a type of Benign Tumour found in the uterus more commonly found in woman over the age of 35 years and had further advised Mrs.Kalaivani to undergo Hysterectomy surgery for removal of uterus. Thereafter, Mrs.Kalaivani on 13.6.2000 was referred to K.M.F. Hospital at Kotagiri to undergo Hysterectomy surgery for removal of Fibroid Uterus. In the mean time, on 17.6.2000 Mrs.Kalaivani died out of natural causes viz., Fibroid uterus and not due to any injuries sustained. R.W1. Doctor, who examined the deceased also deposed in his evidence that the death is not due to the injuries sustained in the accident. So the documents suggest that the deceased died on 17.6.2000 due to natural causes and not due to any injury sustained in the alleged accident and also there is no post mortem conducted and therefore it is not filed. If the post mortem is conducted and report is filed, the cause of death would be known. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the deceased died, not due to the alleged injury sustained in the accident during the course of her employment, but she died only due to natural cause. Therefore, in the absence of first information report and the Post mortem report, the finding given by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor that the deceased died due to the accident is perverse and the said finding is set aside. Hence, I answer the questions referred to above in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P is closed. Hence, I answer the questions referred to above in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P is closed. In the present case, from the records it is clear that the award of the Deputy Commissioner for Labour-I (Commissioner of Workmens Compensation-I) dated 29.9.2003 was despatched on 4.12.2003 and it was received by the appellant on 6.12.2003. After receipt of the award, the amount was deposited on 13.2.2004. Therefore, it is clear that the award amount has not been deposited within the period stipulated by the Deputy Commissioner and there has been a delay. Since the amount has not been deposited within the stipulated time, default clause takes life. Applying the ratio mentioned in the above decision, the claimant is Deputy Commissioner for Labour-I (Commissioner of Workmens Compensation-I is right in not awarding interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of accident under Section 4A(3) of W.C.Act, while passing the award on merit and I find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Labour-I and the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs.