JUDGMENT : R.L. Jhanwar, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.8.2002 passed in Case No. 38/W.C.A./COC-1-B/01 (F) by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur ('the Commissioner' for short) dismissing the claim of the appellants. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are the unfortunate wife and children of the deceased Bhuneshwar Jaiswal, who was working as Head Mistry in the rice mill, owned by the respondents. He was earning Rs. 2,000 per month as salary. The respondents after installing a motor shaft with other machinery in their rice mill did not take any safety measures. On 25.1.2001 at about 5.30 a.m. while Bhuneshwar Jaiswal was working, his cloth was caught up by the safety-less shaft, due to which he received serious injuries and thereafter he died in the premises of rice mill owned by respondents. Report was lodged at Police Station, Bilha. After receiving information of accident, the respondents had not paid even single penny to the claimants, which inaction on the part of respondents has compelled the claimants to file a claim petition before the learned Commissioner, Bilaspur. 2. The respondents had filed their written statement and admitted that deceased was working as helper in their rice mill; accident took place and due to that accident he died. It has also been specifically pleaded that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself and safety measures were taken in the rice mill. On the date of accident, the deceased came to attend his duty wearing a shawl, he was warned not to work wearing loose clothes like shawl. Thereafter, the respondents took the shawl from the deceased and kept the same separately. It has further been specifically pleaded that the deceased, however, managed to get back the shawl and attended his duties in the night, without knowledge of the respondents. They also pleaded that despite stern warning as to not to attend duties wearing loose clothes, the deceased attended his duties wearing shawl and during the course of his working, the shawl came into contact with the shaft machine and he got injured and thereafter he died. The deceased was himself negligent although he was aware of the fact that he should not perform his duties before running machine. The deceased was himself negligent although he was aware of the fact that he should not perform his duties before running machine. As the deceased did not pay any heed towards their warning, they are not responsible to pay compensation for the death of the deceased. 3. All the parties led their evidence. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties and after appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Commissioner has dismissed the claim on the ground that the deceased himself was negligent while doing his job and, therefore, legal representatives of the deceased were not entitled to get any compensation u/s 3(1) proviso (b) (ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act'). 4. Being aggrieved thereby, appellants-claimants preferred this appeal against the impugned award. 5. Mrs. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, argued that learned Commissioner has erred in interpreting section 3 of the Act, which only deals with injured persons and if death of injured person took place arising out of and in the course of employment, even if he is negligent, then his legal representatives will get compensation. On these premises, she urged that just and proper compensation may be awarded by allowing this appeal. Learned counsel placed reliance on the matter of R.B. Moondra and Co. Vs. Mst. Bhanwari and Another AIR 1970 Raj 111 . 6. On the other hand, Mr. Jamil Akhtar Lohani, learned counsel for the respondents, supported the impugned award while submitting that the learned Commissioner has rightly rejected the claim case on the ground of deceased being himself negligent. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the learned Commissioner including impugned award. 8. In the present case, the following question of law has been framed by this court : Whether the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has wrongly held that the deceased himself was liable for his death? 9. It is admitted that deceased was the employee of respondents and was working in the rice mill owned by the respondents. It is also not disputed that at the time of accident the deceased was on duty in the night shift and accident took place early morning at 5.30 a.m. on 25.1.2001 and due to that the deceased died after receiving severe injuries. It is also not disputed that at the time of accident the deceased was on duty in the night shift and accident took place early morning at 5.30 a.m. on 25.1.2001 and due to that the deceased died after receiving severe injuries. The only stand taken by the respondents is that the deceased himself was not careful during the course of his work. The respondents warned the deceased not to attend his work by wearing loose clothes like shawl as the machinery installed therein are always in operation and there may be chances of accident. It is clear from the evidence of Pawan Kumar Agrawal, NAW 2, that he was present in the night shift and had taken shawl of the deceased and advised him not to attend his duties by wearing shawl. He has further deposed that deceased, however, managed to get back his shawl and after wearing the same he attended to his duty. While he was on duty the shawl was suddenly entrapped in the running machine, due to that the deceased also came into clutches of the running machine and received injuries, thereafter he succumbed to the injuries. Uma Jaiswal, AW 1, wife of the deceased, has deposed that the deceased was, at the time of the accident, aged about 28 years and for that school transfer certificate was produced. She denied that her husband himself was negligent. Rameshwar, AW 2, has stated that at the time of the accident, Bhuneshwar was working near the machine and he came into contact with the moving machine and died. He has further deposed that he was also present with the deceased. He has also stated that there was no warning notice about the safety and preventive measure to be taken by the workers in the rice mill. However, this witness admitted that the owner used to warn the workers not to come with loose clothes. He also admitted that the deceased wore shawl at the time of accident. 10. On perusal of evidence of above witnesses, it is clear that the deceased was working in the rice mill, owned by the respondents. At the time of the accident, deceased was on duty. The evidence has also revealed that he was wearing a shawl and suddenly when shawl came into contact with the running machine, he was also caught up by running machine, received injuries and died. At the time of the accident, deceased was on duty. The evidence has also revealed that he was wearing a shawl and suddenly when shawl came into contact with the running machine, he was also caught up by running machine, received injuries and died. Therefore, the learned Commissioner recorded finding that the deceased died due to his own negligence. 11. In order to appreciate the arguments, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant parts of section 3 of the Act. 3. Employer's liability for compensation.-(1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter : Provided that the employer shall not be so liable- (a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days; (b) in respect of an injury, not resulting in death or permanent total disablement caused by an accident which is directly attributable to- (i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the wilful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or (iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen. After perusal of above, it is clear that this section deals with injury and due to injury or injuries if any employee's death took place arising out of and in the course of employment, then his death should be presumed that due to accident death of workman took place arising out of and in the course of employment and, therefore, the wilful disobedience of any order or rule is not material. 12. In the present case, all facts that the deceased was employee of the respondents; he was earning Rs. 2,000 per month and he died during the course of employment, etc. were admitted meaning thereby the relationship between employee and employer has been established. 12. In the present case, all facts that the deceased was employee of the respondents; he was earning Rs. 2,000 per month and he died during the course of employment, etc. were admitted meaning thereby the relationship between employee and employer has been established. The respondents, however, laid stress on the point that despite their clear warning the deceased attended to his duties by wearing loose clothes like shawl and death of deceased took place due to his own negligence. In case of death, if the workman died of injury arising out of and in the course of employment, in that situation, the question of wilful disobedience of any order or rule is immaterial because the relationship between employee and employer has already been established. The appellant did not commit any wilful disobedience and he has died arising out of and in the course of employment. The substantial question of law is answered in the negative. Thus, the claimants, in this appeal, are entitled to get compensation. 13. So far as the compensation amount payable to the claimants is concerned, in this case, Exh. 17, which is school transfer certificate of the deceased, is on record. A perusal of Exh. P17 has clearly revealed that the date of birth of the deceased is 10.6.1971. Therefore, on the date of accident, his age was 29 years, 7 months and 15 days. He was earning Rs. 2,000, as is evident from the evidence of Uma Jaiswal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I propose to compute the compensation as per section 4(1)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Accordingly, if one-half is deducted towards the monthly wages from Rs. 2,000, then a sum of Rs. 1,000 would come. Taking into account the age of the deceased, it would be appropriate to apply the factor of 207.98. If the remaining amount of Rs. 1,000 is multiplied with the factor of 207.98, then the sum of Rs. 2,07,980, rounded off to Rs. 2,08,000 comes out as compensation. For the foregoing reasons, appeal filed by claimants is allowed. The claimants are entitled to receive Rs. 2,08,000 as total compensation. The respondents shall deposit the compensation amount with the concerned learned Commissioner within 1 month. If the amount of Rs. 2,07,980, rounded off to Rs. 2,08,000 comes out as compensation. For the foregoing reasons, appeal filed by claimants is allowed. The claimants are entitled to receive Rs. 2,08,000 as total compensation. The respondents shall deposit the compensation amount with the concerned learned Commissioner within 1 month. If the amount of Rs. 2,08,000 is not paid within stipulated period, then the claimants are entitled to get interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of amount. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.