Judgment 1. The 2nd respondent insurance company in WCA.NFC.24 and 25/2000 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Kolar has filed these appeals challenging the common order dated 29.10.2005 passed in the aforesaid two claim petitions so far as it pertains to fastening liability to pay compensation to claimants on it. 2. Brief facts leading to these appeals are as under: The case of claimants in NFC.24 and 25/2000 is that, claimant in 24/2000 Thimmappa is uncle and claimant in 25/2000 namely Narayanappa is nephew. They are employees under 1st respondent working as loaders in lorry bearing No.KA-03/A-1204 belonging to 1st respondent, insured with 2nd respondent. On 8.9.1999 they were traveling in said lorry as loaders in the course of their employment, said lorry met with an accident near Varthur on Nelamangala – Tavarekere road resulting in grievous injuries to both claimants. Each of them filed claim petitions seeking compensation for injuries suffered in the said accident. The said claim petitions were filed against their employer/1st respondent and also insurer of vehicle, namely 2nd respondent. In the proceedings before Commissioner each of them adduced evidence in support of their claim and also examined an Orthopedic surgeon in support of their case to establish the disability caused to their whole body due to injuries suffered in the aforesaid accident and the effect of said disability on their earning capacity. 3. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record the Commissioner proceeded to hold that claimants 1 and 2 met with an accident on 8.9.1999 in the course of their employment as loaders under 1st respondent in his lorry and the injury caused to them in the said accident is attributable to their employment in the lorry belonging to 1st respondent; as such they are entitled to compensation. The Commissioner assessed the compensation payable to claimants taking their wages at Rs.3,000/- p.m. each. Considering the age of Thimmappa the factor of 102.93 was taken and holding that he has suffered loss of earning capacity to the tune of 40% compensation of Rs.49,406/- was awarded to him. So far as Narayanappa is concerned factor of 201.66 was taken considering his age and his loss of earning capacity was taken at 36% and accordingly, compensation in a sum of Rs.87,117/- was awarded to him. So far as Narayanappa is concerned factor of 201.66 was taken considering his age and his loss of earning capacity was taken at 36% and accordingly, compensation in a sum of Rs.87,117/- was awarded to him. It is further ordered that both of them are entitled to receive compensation as calculated above with 12% from the date of accident till date of deposit of entire amount and liability to pay said compensation was fastened both on 1st respondent, owner of lorry in question as employer and 2nd respondent as insurer of said lorry. 4. 2nd respondent being aggrieved by the same has come up in these appeals on the ground that entire claim in NFC.24 and 24/2000 by claimants is false, frivolous and based on concocted facts. The entire pleadings in the claim petitions are contrary to the documents produced by them in the said proceedings. There is error on the part of Commissioner in appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record which has resulted in awarding compensation to claimants which is required to be set aside. It is also contended that claim petitions re filed in wrong forum i.e when accident had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Bangalore District and when both the claimants are permanent residents of Bangalore, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Kolar ought not to have entertained the said claim petitions. 5. This court admitted the above appeals to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1) Whether the finding of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Kolar that the respondent No.1 in both appeals were coolies under employment of respondent No.2 is correct and proved in accordance with law? 2) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Kolar District Kolar had jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the petition in view of the alleged accident having taken place in Bangalore District and the petitioner being a permanent resident of Bangalore District? 6. Heard the counsel for appellant and respondents. 2) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Kolar District Kolar had jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the petition in view of the alleged accident having taken place in Bangalore District and the petitioner being a permanent resident of Bangalore District? 6. Heard the counsel for appellant and respondents. On reappreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record with reference to grounds of appeal this Court answer the aforesaid substantial questions of law in the negative for the following: REASONS Admittedly, the accident involving lorry bearing No.KA-03/A-1204 causing injury to claimants took place on 8.9.1999 at about 4’o’ clock and the said accident has taken place within the limits of Tavarekere Police Station, which is situated in Magadi Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The documents available on record disclose that though accident has taken place on 8.9.1999 claimant in WCA.25/2000, namely, Narayanappa lodged FIR with Tavarekere Police on 15.9.1999 wherein he states ad under: “That on 8.9.1999 at about 3 p.m., myself and my uncle Thimmappa were coming back from Bangalore and we were waiting in Tavarekere bus stop to catch the bus. At that time a lorry came from the side of kumbalgod towards Nelamangala and the said lorry stopped in the bus stand and took the passengers waiting there. We also got into the said lorry and when the said lorry was proceeding towards Nelamangala, on the way, near Varthur at about 4 pm., said lorry capsized to its left side due to rash and negligent driving of its driver resulting in injuries to myself and my uncle.” 7. Based on that FIR was registered in Crime No.169/1999. It is seen that subsequently claim petitions are filed by claimants on 10.11.2000. At the time of filing claim petitions both claimants contended that they are employees under 1st respondent A.P.Arjun resident of Srinivasa Building, New bazaar Road, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore. That on 8.9.1999 in the course of their employment they were traveling in the lorry in question to transport Pepsi bottles loaded in the lorry from Tavarekere to Nelamangala. On the way, said lorry from Tavarekere to Nelamangala. On the way, said lorry met with an accident. As a result they suffered injuries and the said injuries are caused to them in the course of their employment and as such, they are entitled to seek compensation. On the way, said lorry from Tavarekere to Nelamangala. On the way, said lorry met with an accident. As a result they suffered injuries and the said injuries are caused to them in the course of their employment and as such, they are entitled to seek compensation. Subsequently, they also filed a memo stating that there was a mistake on their part in mentioning the name of owner of lorry in question under whom they were working as loaders and instead of mentioning his name as Dilip Kapoor and Brothers, resident of No.8, White field Road, Doddanekundi Industrial Area, Bangalore-48 they have wrongly given the name of A.P.Arjun. On an application filed by them Commissioner permitted them to make necessary amendment to cause title to change the name of their employer from A.P.Arjun to that of Dilip Kapoor and Brothers and proceeded with claim petitions. 8. New coming to the facts, admittedly accident has taken place in Magadi Taluk situated within Bangalore Rural District. Admittedly, claimants are residents of Varadanayakanahalli, Tyamagondlu Hobli, Bangalore District. Therefore, under Section 21 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, claimants ought to have filed claim petitions before the jurisdictional Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation instead they filed claim petitions before Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Kolar, who has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions. Time and again this court has observed that the primary responsibility is on Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation to verify the place of accident and place of residence of claimants before accepting the claim petitions for adjudication. It is the bounden duty of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation to ascertain whether he has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition presented before him for adjudication. 9. As seen in many cases, there appears to be un-holly nexus between claimants and various other people who are involved in presenting claim petitions before authorities not having jurisdiction to entertain the same for the extraneous reasons to get favourable orders by Commissioner. The present case is one such classic example where Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. Kolar though does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions, accept the same. The present case is one such classic example where Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. Kolar though does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions, accept the same. conveniently ignore the FIR which is produced before him and marked as Ex.P3, proceeded to accept the claimants as employees under 1st respondent when admittedly, said claimants have stated that they were fare paying passengers in the lorry in question, to accommodate the claimants to award compensation when actually they are not entitled to any such relief. Therefore, it is seen that there is clear collusion between claimant and the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation in passing the aforesaid illegal order allowing the false and frivolous claims fo claimants in WCA.NFC.24 and 25/2000 and awarding compensation fastening liability on appellant/insurance company to pay the same. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals are allowed. The common order dated 29.10.2005 passed in NFC.24 and 25/2000 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Kolar is set aside. In view of the appeals being allowed, the amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant.