Judgment : A vehicle, bearing No.AP 04 T 8561, is owned by the 5th respondent and insured with the appellant. Respondents 1 to 4 filed W.C.No.62 of 2004 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (for short ‘the Commissioner’), Kadapa, claiming compensation, on account of the death of late Obili Ravi, the son of claimants 1 and 2 and brother of claimants 3 and 4. It was pleaded that the deceased was working as a Coolie, on the lorry, and on 25-02-2003, he and other coolies loaded the lorry with baskets of betel leaves at Obulavaripalli. It was urged that the deceased was asked to travel in the lorry up to Hyderabad for the purpose of unloading, and when the lorry reached Anjaneyaswamy Temple of Chennur on Kadapa - Kurnool Highway, it turned turtle, on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. The baskets of betel leaves are said to have fallen on Ravi, and he died on the spot due to suffocation. Crime No.8 of 2003 was registered. Other relevant facts were also pleaded. The 5th respondent, who is the owner of the lorry, filed a written-statement admitting the fact that the deceased and his father, the 1st respondent were working as coolies/hamalis and that on 25-02-2003, they loaded the lorry and were traveling in it to Hyderabad. The fact that the deceased died in the course of employment was admitted. According to him, the deceased was being paid Rs.80/- per day. The O.P was opposed by the appellant herein. According to them, the deceased does not come within the purview of the Act and that there is nothing on record to disclose that the deceased was employed with the 5th respondent. It was also urged that the deceased, his father and other family members were travelling in the truck as passengers. Through order, dated 24-05-2010, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.2,32,831/-, as compensation. The appellant challenges the same. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was a student and to that effect the evidence of the Principal of Junior College as RW-4 was adduced. He submits that though the deceased was travelling as a passenger, he was shown as worker. The appellant challenges the same. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was a student and to that effect the evidence of the Principal of Junior College as RW-4 was adduced. He submits that though the deceased was travelling as a passenger, he was shown as worker. Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, on the other hand, submits that, once the owner of the lorry admits that the deceased was an employee, it is not open to the Insurance Company to plead otherwise. He further submits that the Commissioner has discussed the oral and documentary evidence adduced before him carefully and arrived at just and proper conclusion. The appellant challenges the order passed by the Commissioner mainly urging that the deceased was not employed with the 5th respondent, i.e. the owner of the lorry. Before the Commissioner, AW-1 was examined on behalf of the claimants. RWs 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the 5th respondent, and RWs 3 and 4 were examined by the appellant herein. AW-1 is the father of the deceased. He stated that his son was working with the 5th respondent as a Coolie to load the lorry, and that on 25-02-2003, the lorry was loaded with baskets of betel leaves. At the time of accident, himself and other family members are said to have boarded it, with a view to travel to another place. In the cross-examination, it was suggested to him that himself and all his family members including the deceased were travelling in the lorry as passengers, and that his son was not employed with the 5th respondent. The appellant did make an effort to establish that the deceased was not employed with the 5th respondent. However, once the 5th respondent admitted in his counter that the deceased was employed with him, there was hardly any scope for the appellant to prove it, otherwise. Further, the driver of the lorry was examined as RW-1, and he spoke to the fact that the deceased was employed as a worker. RW-2 is the GPA holder of the 5th respondent. He too stated that the deceased was employed to work under the 5th respondent. In the cross-examination, not much was elicited to the contrary. Further, the driver of the lorry was examined as RW-1, and he spoke to the fact that the deceased was employed as a worker. RW-2 is the GPA holder of the 5th respondent. He too stated that the deceased was employed to work under the 5th respondent. In the cross-examination, not much was elicited to the contrary. Unless the insurer of a vehicle alleges collusion between the worker or his dependants, on the one hand, and the owner of the vehicle, on the other hand, any amount of effort made by it, to doubt the relationship of employer and employee would not be of much significance. The Assistant Manager of the appellant deposed as RW-3. He has stated that according to the information received by him, the deceased was studying First Year of Intermediate in Sri Siva Sai Junior College. He has filed the requisition letter, Ex.B-3, issued to him by the Principal of the Junior College and the endorsement made by the Principal upon it. It was elicited through him that the name of the father of the student was mentioned as Venkateswarlu in Ex.B-3, whereas, the father of the deceased herein, who is none other than the 1st respondent, is, by name, Venkata Dasu. He has also admitted that none of those facts were mentioned in their counter. RW-4 is the Principal of a Private Junior College at Nandyal. He stated that Obili Ravi was their student and was admitted into C.E.C course on 10-08-2002. He spoke with reference to the endorsement on Ex.P-3. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the endorsement was made by the Clerk and he signed it. The discrepancy as to the name of the father of the student was elicited. Certain abnormalities in the relevant entries in the admission register were pointed out. The evidence of RWs 3 and 4 and the documentary evidence filed by them is not much helpful to the appellant to plead that the deceased was not employed with the 5th respondent. Assuming that the deceased was a student, there is nothing, which prohibits him from doing Coolie work. It is not uncommon that students hailing from financially weaker sections do work, of one nature or the other, to meet the expenditure, or to help the parents. Efforts of such people must be commended, particularly, when unruly behaviour is widespread among student community. It is not uncommon that students hailing from financially weaker sections do work, of one nature or the other, to meet the expenditure, or to help the parents. Efforts of such people must be commended, particularly, when unruly behaviour is widespread among student community. Another aspect of the matter is that, to be covered under the Act, it is not necessary that a person must be appointed on regular basis. Even a casual worker answers the description of the workman, under the Act. Once the employer admits the factum of employment, it is not at all open to the insurer to doubt those facts. The C.M.A is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.