JUDGMENT : C.S. Karnan, J. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A. (MD). No. 203 of 2004, against the order made in W.C. No. 589 of 2001, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Madurai. The short facts of the case are as follows: The appellant, viz., Tmt. S. Seeniammal, has filed an application u/s 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act 1923, claiming a compensation of Rs. 3,27,705/- as compensation, payable to them for the death of her husband viz., Balraj on 14.4.2001, in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment against the respondents. It was submitted that the deceased Balraj was working as a cleaner/loadman, under the 1st respondents borewell lorry bearing registration No. KA-06M-6837. On 14.4.2001, when he was travelling in the said vehicle and when the vehicle was coming near Kandaswasalu Pasa Village, Tumkur District, Karnataka State, the (deceased) Balraj tried to lift the power line which was above the lorry. Unfortunately, the deceased was electrocuted and sustained electrical burns and he died in the hospital. The deceased was aged 24 years at the time of accident and he was getting Rs. 3,000/- per month as salary. Hence, the applicant has filed the claim as against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the said lorry involved in the accident. 2. The 2nd respondent in his counter had denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased, as well as the nature of injuries and manner of accident. It was submitted that the applicant has to prove that the driver of the 1st respondent's lorry had a valid driving licence at the time of accident and that there is no breach of policy conditions. 3. The Commissioner for Workmen compensation framed four issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Whether the deceased Balraj is a workman as per the Workmen's compensation Act?; (2) If so, whether he died in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment?; (3) If, what is the quantum of compensation payable to him and (4) Who is liable to pay the compensation?. 4. 4. On the side of applicant, the applicant was examined as P.W. 1 and ten documents were marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-10 namely: Exhibit A-1-F.I.R. dated 15.4.2001; Exhibit A-2-English translated copy of F.I.R. No. 4 of 2001, dated 15.4.2001; Exhibit A-3-legal notice dated 10.9.2001 sent to the 1st respondent; Exhibit A-4-acknowledgement card; Exhibit A-5-copy of reply dated 9.7.2002 of the 1st respondent; Exhibit A-6-insurance claim form; Exhibit A-7-death certificate issued by Government of Karnataka; Exhibit A-8-legal heir certificate dated 19.7.2001 issued by Tahsildar, Nilakottai; Exhibit A-9-copy of post mortem certificate in Kannada Language and Exhibit A-10-English translated copy of post mortem certificate. 5. D.W. 1, in her evidence has deposed that the deceased Balraj was employed by the 1st respondent as a cleaner in his vehicle bearing registration No. KA-06M-6837 and that on 14.4.2001, during the course of his employment, he met with an accident and succumbed to injuries. In support of her evidence, she has filed the exhibits listed as A1 to A10. The Commissioner observed that the 1st respondent, who is the employer of the deceased, did not deny the contentions made by the applicant. It was also observed that the statements contained in the F.I.R. also corroborates with the version of the applicant regarding occurrence of accident. The Commissioner on considering that no contra evidence were placed on the side of the respondents to rebut the claim of the applicant held that the deceased Balraj is a workmen employed by the 1st respondent and died in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. 6. It was contended on the side of the 2nd respondent that the deceased Balraj was only a helper as per the claim form (Exhibit A-6). It has been stated in the application filed by the applicant that the deceased worked as cleaner/loadman. In the legal notice (Exhibit A-3) issued by the counsel for the applicant, it has been clearly stated that the deceased Balraj worked as a cleaner. The 1st respondent by his letter dated 9.7.2002 (Exhibit A-5) has not disputed the employment of the deceased Balraj as cleaner. The F.I.R. (Exhibit A-1 and A-2) clearly reveal that the deceased was a cleaner at the time of his death. Hence, the Commissioner held that the deceased was a cleaner under the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by his letter dated 9.7.2002 (Exhibit A-5) has not disputed the employment of the deceased Balraj as cleaner. The F.I.R. (Exhibit A-1 and A-2) clearly reveal that the deceased was a cleaner at the time of his death. Hence, the Commissioner held that the deceased was a cleaner under the 1st respondent. As no documentary evidence had been produced to prove the income of the deceased, the Commissioner took the minimum wages payable for a cleaner as Rs. 2,700/- as per the G.O. No. 102, L and E, dated 22.9.1999. The Commissioner, on considering that the age of the deceased was 24 years as per Exhibit A-10, post mortem report and adopting a multiplier of 218.47, awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,94,935/- (Rs. 2,700 x 50/100 x 218.47) to the applicant under the head of loss of income. The Commissioner further awarded Rs. 2,500/- for funeral expenses. Hence, the Tribunal on considering that the 1st respondent's lorry had been insured with the 2nd respondent at the time of accident held the 2nd respondent liable to pay the said compensation to the applicant within 30 days from the date of its order, failing which the 2nd respondent was directed to pay the sum at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit of compensation. 7. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, the 2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Commissioner failed to note that the parents of the deceased Balraj have claimed compensation at Dindigul in W.C. No. 157 of 2001 and the petitioner has suppressed the fact that the parents of the deceased are alive and had secured the compensation, which is legally unsustainable. It was pointed out that the learned Commissioner ought to have given a clear finding on the question of dependants before disbursing the amount. Hence, it was prayed to modify the order passed by the Commissioner. 8. R. Perumayee, wife of Raman and mother of deceased Balraj had filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition (MD). No. 1 of 2008, in MP. SR. No. 6298 of 2008, in C.M.A. (MD). No. 203 of 2004, to permit to be impleaded as 3rd respondent in C.M.A. No. 203 of 2004 and to condone the delay of 194 days in representing the MP. SR. No. 1 of 2008, in MP. SR. No. 6298 of 2008, in C.M.A. (MD). No. 203 of 2004, to permit to be impleaded as 3rd respondent in C.M.A. No. 203 of 2004 and to condone the delay of 194 days in representing the MP. SR. No. 6298 of 2008, in C.M.A. No. 203 of 2004. This Court by its order dated 24.10.2008 had condoned delay and allowed the petitioner to be added as 3rd respondent pay a sum of Rs. 250/- to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of its order failing which the order shall stand automatically cancelled without any reference to this Court. 9. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, namely Seeniammal has argued that her husband Balraj was working as a cleaner cum loadman under the 1st respondent, in the borewell lorry bearing registration No. KA-06M-6873. On 14.4.2001, when the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle, near Tumkur, Karnataka State he tried to lift the power line going above the lorry but unfortunately the deceased was electrocuted and sustained electrical burns and died in the hospital. It clearly proves that the deceased had expired in the course of employment. The learned counsel further argued that to substantiate the said occurrence, the applicant had marked F.I.R., Post mortem certificate and death certificate. On the basis of these relevant records, the age, income and occupation of the deceased were properly determined and compensation was assessed and the same was awarded. The learned counsel further submits that the 3rd respondent viz., Perumayee has no rights to claim any compensation for the death of Balraj. 10. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour passed in W.C. No. 589 of 2001, on the file of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, dated 4.12.2002, this Court does not find any infirmity in the said order. As such, the above appeal is dismissed. Regarding the legal heirship and apportionment of said compensation amount, this Court directs the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, to disburse the compensation amount, in accordance with law to be beneficiaries of the deceased Balraj, at the earliest. As such, the above appeal is dismissed. Regarding the legal heirship and apportionment of said compensation amount, this Court directs the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, to disburse the compensation amount, in accordance with law to be beneficiaries of the deceased Balraj, at the earliest. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in W.C. No. 589 of 2001, on the file of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, dated 4.12.2002, is confirmed. No costs.