Judgment Admit. Notice made returnable forthwith. Notice waived by the Respondents. Perused the impugned Judgment. 2. This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the Judgment and Order dated 21st March, 2011. The Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. A substantial questions of law arose:- "1) Whether there is a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy as the Respondent No.2 failed to provide safety measures? 2) Whether the Commissioner has properly appreciated the evidence on the point of wages?" 3. The deceased died on 23rd December, 2007. He was working as a Labour on a construction work. At the time of work, he fell from 15th floor of the building under construction and succumbed to the injuries. The mother of the deceased filed an Application for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. She claimed compensation of Rs. 4,52,760/-plus interest @12% p.a. and also cost of the Application. She also prayed for penalty. The Opponent No.1 the employer appeared and submitted its written statement. The Opponent No.1 admitted that the deceased was working with it on the construction work. The Opponent no.1 also submitted that it had insured all its employees working on the site vide Policy no.140100/36/07/01/00000208. 4. Opponent No.2 Insurance Company contested the claim by filing its written statement and denied all the averments made in the claim in respect of employment and submitted that the accident occurred in the course of and out of the employment. So also, it is pleaded that the Opponent No.1 had breached the terms and conditions of the policy and safety measures were not taken by the Opponent No.1. So, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The learned Commissioner allowed the claim and awarded full compensation with interest @12% p.a. as prayed 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company submits that Opponent No.1/ Employer should have taken the safety measures and as per the conditions of the policy, it was the responsibility of the employer to ensure safety measures under Section 32(c) of the Factories Act. It is, therefore, submitted that the Appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. It is further argued that the finding of the learned Commissioner on the point of fixing the wages @ Rs.4,000/-per month is erroneous. It is, therefore, submitted that the Appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. It is further argued that the finding of the learned Commissioner on the point of fixing the wages @ Rs.4,000/-per month is erroneous. In fact, on the basis of the evidence which is tendered by the Appellant and on the basis of the register of the wages and the muster roll, it shows that the deceased was earning Rs. 150/-per day. However, his working is of 20-25 days. He submitted that on the basis of the muster roll the deceased was paid of Rs. 2,500/-to 2,600/-per month @ Rs. 100/-per day. He submits that the Trial Court has erred in fixing the wages of Rs.4,000/-per month. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Applicant while opposing the Appeal submits that the Applicant has examined herself and the Applicant has deposed that her son was drawing salary of Rs.150/-per day and at the time of accident, the deceased was 18 years old. He submits that the son of the Applicant was earning Rs.4,000/-per month. Therefore, the compensation awarded by fixing the amount of Rs.4,000/-per month is correct. 7. Deceased died by falling from 15th floor of the building. The way in which the deceased died, no safety measures could have been saved the deceased after falling from 15th floor. Even if the helmet is provided, it is difficult to say that one could have been survived after falling from such height of 15th floor. So, there is no breach of policy in respect of providing safety measures. It is an accident in the course of employment and for which the Opponent employer is liable. The valid Insurance policy is produced on record. Therefore, under the policy, by way of contract, the Insurance Company is also liable. 8. It is true that though there is oral evidence of the Applicant that her son was earning Rs.150/-per day and in the written statement which was filed by opponent no.1 it was shown as Rs.4,000/-per month. The register of wages and muster roll produced before the Court by the Appellant discloses that the deceased was paid approximately Rs.2,500/-to Rs.2,600/-per month i.e. he was paid off Rs. 100/-per day and his monthly income is not more than Rs.2,500/-to Rs.2,600/-. It is a documentary evidence which is not denied so authentic. The register of wages and muster roll produced before the Court by the Appellant discloses that the deceased was paid approximately Rs.2,500/-to Rs.2,600/-per month i.e. he was paid off Rs. 100/-per day and his monthly income is not more than Rs.2,500/-to Rs.2,600/-. It is a documentary evidence which is not denied so authentic. Thus, considering his income @ Rs.100/-per day, minimum wages is to be considered of Rs.3,000/-per month and not Rs.4,000/-per month. 9. One has to go with the documentary evidence which is before the Court on the point of per day wages and the calculate monthly income. The Commissioner committed an error in fixing the compensation based on oral evidence i.e. Rs.4,000/-per month. Hence, this Court modifies the order passed by the Trial Court on the point of monthly income in respect of Rs.4,000/-per month. It is to be Rs.3,000/-per month. Rest of the other findings in respect of multipliers and interest are maintained. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Insurance Company has deposited the entire amount of compensation and interest accrued thereon. The difference after calculation is to be refunded. The Insurance Company is entitled to receive the difference after payment as compensation @ Rs. 3,000/-per month to the Respondents. 11. In view of the above, the Appeal is disposed of. Civil Application No.2828 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of.