Judgment 1. Second respondent- Insurer in WCA-13/2007 on the file of commissioner for Workmen’s compensation. Chikmagalur, has come up in this appeal challenging the order dated 03.08.2007 passed in the said proceedings awarding compensation to claimant in a sum of Rs.3,90,438/-payable with interest from 30th day of accident till date of deposit of entire amount. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: Claimants are the parents of deceased Ramesh. Their case is that their son, Ramesh an employee in the coffee estate of first respondent met with an accident on 04.03.2004, in the course of his employment resulting in injuries to his spinal card. After the accident he underwent treatment for more than 6 months and thereafter succumbed to said injuries. In the meanwhile he had filed a petition seeking compensation from his employer, owner of SLN Estate and its insurer – second respondent, the appellant herein. Subsequent to his death, his parents came on legal heirs continued the claim petition. 3. In the said proceedings, insurance company entered appearance, filed statement of objections. Based on the pleadings, issues were framed, evidence was recorded. On appreciation of the same the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation allowed the claim petition awarding compensation to the parents of deceased Ramesh in a sum of Rs.3,90,438/- payable with interest @ 12% from the date of accident till the date of payment of the same. 4. The second respondent – insurance company being aggrieved by the finding of the Commissioner accepting that there existed relationship of employee and employer between deceased Ramesh and first respondent. That the claimants are entitled to receive the compensation calculated taking the income of deceased @ Rs.3,000/- per month and also fastening liability on the insurer to pay interest on the said compensation amount has come up in this appeal. 5. On perusal of the grounds of appeal and also the findings of the Commissioner on the issues framed in the claim petition, this Court find that the following substantial questions of law arises for consideration: i. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was justified in holding that the deceased Ramesh was a coolie in SLN Estate belonging to first respondent, Shri. B. Ramaswamy? ii. ii. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was justified in awarding compensation to the claimant taking the salary of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/- per month, contrary to the proposal submitted by the first respondent declaring that the salary paid by him to the employees is @ Rs.8,500/- per annum? iii. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was justified in saddling the liability to pay the interest on the second respondent contrary to the terms of the policy, endorsed on Exhibit – R2? 6. Heard the counsel for the appellant and respondents. On reappreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence in the light of the grounds of appeal and also the findings of the Commissioner in the order impugned, this court answers the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal as under: First Substantial Question of Law in Affirmative. Second and Third in Negative for the following: REASONS 7. The oral and documentary evidence available on record clearly discloses that the deceased Ramesh was working in the coffee estate of first respondent, B. Ramaswamy as on 04.03.2004, it has also come in the evidence of the deceased, when he was alive at an undisputed point of time, that he was employed in the coffee estate of the first respondent since three months prior to the date of the accident. The second respondent – insurance company has not produced any evidence contrary to the said statement. However, the documents which are produced by them at Exhibit – R3 is an undated medical certificates, which is said to have secured by one of its investigators in the month of December 2004 to the effect that the deceased Ramesh was employed in Boothankad Estate instead of SLN Estate. The same is not properly demonstrated by the second respondent. Further, the said Exhibit R3, which is an undated certificate given in writing by Dr. Prasanna Kumar cannot be accepted for the reason that the said doctor is not examined and the said document is not produced and marked through him. Hence, the same cannot be accepted. 8. Therefore, with the available evidence on record, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that deceased Ramesh was working in SLN Estate belonging to first respondent as on the date of the accident and that he suffered injuries in the accident which took place in the course of his employment with the first respondent. 8. Therefore, with the available evidence on record, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that deceased Ramesh was working in SLN Estate belonging to first respondent as on the date of the accident and that he suffered injuries in the accident which took place in the course of his employment with the first respondent. Hence, the first substantial question of law is answered in affirmative. 9. Now coming to the second substantial question of law regarding jurisdiction of the Commissioner regarding taking the income of the deceased Ramesh at Rs.3,000/-. It is seen from the records that Exhibit R-1 is a proposal, which was submitted by first respondent. Shri. B. Ramaswamy at the time of taking insurance coverage to his estate. In the said proposal form in a column meant for mentioning the number of employees and the salary paid to each of them, the first respondent has stated that he has employed one Maistry and 20 coolies and that he is paying Rs.25,000/- per annum to the Maistry and Rs.1,71,000/- to 20 coolies for the coverage year. If the salary as stated by the first respondent is taken into consideration, the salary that was paid to each of the coolies is Rs.1,71,000 / 20 = 8,550/- per annum. If Rs.8,550/-is taken as wages per annum, the deceased Ramesh would be entitled to compensation in the following sum: = 8550 / 12 = `712.5 = 712.5 x 50% x 216.91 = `,77,274.18 rounded off to = `. 77,275/- 10. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to a sum of `. 77,275/- as against the compensation awarded by the Commissioner in a sum of `. 3,90,438/-. Hence, the second substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant – insurance company. 11. Now coming to the third substantial question of law The same is covered by a reported judgment of this court in the matter of United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nagarathna & Ors, reported in ILR 2003 KAR 4825, wherein this court considering the terms under which the policy issued by the insurance company agreeing to indemnify the liability of the first respondent – employer has issued a policy accepting the wage payable to the claimant @ `. 712.50 and while doing so, it has restricted its liability to the extent of compensation that is required to be calculated taking the salary at `. 712.50 and while doing so, it has restricted its liability to the extent of compensation that is required to be calculated taking the salary at `. 712.50 per month and it bounds itself out for payment of interest or damages which are likely to be awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation in proceedings initiated by the employee or any of his legal heirs, in case of death. Therefore, by following the said principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment, this Court answers the third substantial question of law in negative and holds that the appeal filed by the second respondent – insurance company is required to be allowed directing the appellant to pay the modified compensation in a sum of Rs. 77,275/- to the claimant without there being any liability to pay interest thereon as ordered by the Commissioner. However, rejection of the claim for interest against insurance company does not take away the right of the claimant to receive the interest portion from the first respondent – employer. 12. In view of the appeal being allowed, from out of the amount in deposit, the Registry is directed to release the modified compensation in favour of the appellants i.e., parents of deceased Ramesh, who are respondent nos. 1 and 2 in this proceeding and the balance amount in a sum of Rs.3,13,163/- be refunded in favour of the appellant. With these observations, the appeal is allowed in part, without any order as to cost.