JUDGMENT 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in CMA (MD).No.1756 of 2010, against the order passed in W.C.No.223 of 2007, on the file of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner, who is the son of the deceased Pappayi has filed a claim in W.C.No.223 of 2007, claiming a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-from the respondents, for the death of the said Pappayi, who had died due to the injuries sustained by her when she was doing her duty in the course of employment under the 1st respondent. It was submitted that the deceased Pappayi was working as a coolie under the 1st respondent and she was doing her work at the building construction being erected for "Loom Tex Exports" at Palvarpatti and getting a daily wage of Rs.160/-. On 14.07.2007, at about 12.30 p.m., when the (deceased) Pappayi was doing her work in the building construction site, she fell down from the supporting plat form erected around the construction and sustained severe injuries an her head and all over her body. She was immediately admitted at S.V.Logo hospital, wherein she was given first aid and treated as an inpatient but inspite of medical treatment, she succumbed to her injuries at 02.30 p.m., on the same day. At that time of accident the deceased was aged 50 years. The occurrence of the accident was intimated to the respondents through a lawyer's notice dated 10.08.2007, which was received by them on 14.08.2007, but no compensation had been paid by them. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim as against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the employer and the insurer respectively. 3. The 1st respondent in his counter has submitted that the deceased Pappayi had been working as a coolie under their employment for a few months and that on 14.07.2007, she had fallen down from the supporting plank erected at a height of 10 feet, due to her negligence. It was submitted that the Civil of their firm had immediately admitted her at Logo Hospital at Karur and that she received treatment but inspite of treatment, she had died. It was submitted than a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards funeral expenses and a gratuity of a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid on 14.07.2007 and that a sum of Rs.15,000/-was paid on 18.07.2007 as gratuity. It was submitted than a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards funeral expenses and a gratuity of a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid on 14.07.2007 and that a sum of Rs.15,000/-was paid on 18.07.2007 as gratuity. It was submitted that a total amount of Rs.35,000/- was paid by them to the petitioner and that the petitioner had also given a receipt and an agreement deed. It was submitted that the 1st respondent had also promised to get the petitioner additional compensation from their insurer. It was submitted that the worker in their firm were covered under a policy of insurance with the 2nd respondent. 4. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased. It was also submitted that as per the policy condition, the details regarding worker's name, age and work allotted to them should be given by the 1st respondent and as the 1st respondent had not furnished these details, the contention that the deceased had been covered under a valid policy of insurance was not acceptable. It was submitted that the deceased was aged about 70 years and as such she could not be taken to be a coolie under the employment of the 1st respondent. The averments in the claim that the deceased had died due to injuries sustained by her in alleged accident on 14.07.2007, was also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. In their additional counter, it was pointed out that the 1st respondent had taken a "group personal accident policy" extending coverage to 275 work persons All Over India, engaged in their construction activities and that the 1st respondent had to furnish a claim petition to them and receive compensation. It was submitted that as the 1st respondent had not given any details regarding the accident, they cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. It was submitted that as the "Loom Tex Exports" company, who is the first employer of the deceased, as the construction had been undertaken on their behalf, had not been added as a necessary party and as no employer-employee relationship existed between the said company and the deceased the petition is not maintainable as per the workmen compensation act. 5. It was submitted that as the "Loom Tex Exports" company, who is the first employer of the deceased, as the construction had been undertaken on their behalf, had not been added as a necessary party and as no employer-employee relationship existed between the said company and the deceased the petition is not maintainable as per the workmen compensation act. 5. On the petitioners side, the petitioner namely S.P.Kandasami was examined as Pws.1 and 7 documents were marked namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-post mortem report; Ex.P3-death certificate; Ex.P4-Insurance policy; Ex.P5-lawyers notice; Exs.P6 and P7acknowledgement cards. On the respondents side, no witness, no documents. 6. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation framed five issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Did the deceased work as an employee under the 1st respondent?; (2)If so, did she die while she was doing her duty in the course of employment under the 1st respondent?; (3) What is the age and income of deceased; (4) What is the quantum of compensation which the petitioner is entitled to get?; (5) Who is liable to pay compensation?. 7. PW.1, in his evidence had deposed that his mother Pappayi had worked as a Coolie under the employment of the 1st respondent and that she was working as a Coolie in the building construction site at Palvarpatti, wherein the 1st respondent had obtained a contract to construction for "Loom Tex Exports". He deposed that on 14.07.2007, erect while she was doing her duty as a Coolie, the supporting plank, erected around the top floor of the construction had tilted down, due to which the deceased had lost her footing and fallen down thereby sustaining severe injuries in her head. He deposed that the deceased was admitted at S.V.Logo Hospital, but inspite of medical treatment, she had died. 8. The Commissioner on scrutiny of evidence of PW.1, and F.I.R marked as Ex.P1 and on scrutiny of Ex.P2, the post mortem report and the counter given by the 1st respondent held that the deceased Pappayi had worked as a Coolie under the employment of the 1st respondent and that on 14.07.2007, she had died due to injuries sustained by her, while she was carrying out her duty as an employee under the 1st respondent. 9. The Commissioner on scrutiny of Ex.P2, post mortem report observed that the age of the deceased was 50 years at the time of accident. 9. The Commissioner on scrutiny of Ex.P2, post mortem report observed that the age of the deceased was 50 years at the time of accident. The Commissioner, on observing that no documentary evidence had been marked to establish the income of the deceased held that the monthly income of the deceased could be taken as Rs.4,370/-as per the minimum ages act as per the Government order made in 2(D) 19 (Dept. of Labour and employment) (J1) dated 20.05.2004. However, the commissioner in order to assess the compensation as per the Workmen Compensation Act, held that the monthly income of the deceased could be taken as Rs.4,000/-. The Commissioner, on adopting a multiplier of 153.09, awarded a compensation of Rs.3,06,180/-(Rs.4,000x50/100x153.09) to the petitioner under the head of loss of income. The Commissioner further awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/-for funeral expenses. In total, the commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs.3,08,680/- to the petitioner. 10. On scrutiny of Ex.P4, the insurance policy, it is seen that the 1st respondent had taken a policy of insurance with the 2nd respondent and that the insurance coverage had been extended for 275 Civil Construction Workers and that the coverage was valid from 21.06.2007 to 21.12.2007. It is also seen that the above policy is not a general policy for coverage of insurance to a single party and that it has been specifically taken for Workmen's Compensation (General). Hence, the Commissioner on holding that the Workmen Compensation Act enacted in 1923 is a social welfare legislation and on observing that the 1st respondent had taken a valid policy of insurance with the 2nd respondent for group coverage for workers in his firm, held the 2nd respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the Commissioner directed the 2nd respondent to deposit the said sum of Rs.3,08,680/-within 30 days from the date of its order and that in default, the 2nd respondent was directed to deposit to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of occurrence of accident till date of deposit. 11. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, the 2nd respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited, has preferred the present appeal. 11. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, the 2nd respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the learned Commissioner has erred in holding that the deceased died in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment without any evidence on record. It was pointed out that the learned Commissioner had failed to note that as per Ex.P4-policy, the monthly wages for Civil Workmen is only Rs.1,125/-. It was pointed out that the learned Commissioner has failed to note that the liability of the appellant may not exceed Rs.86,113.12/- as per the policy and that the Commissioner ought to have directed the 2nd respondent to pay the remaining compensation, since the liability of the appellant may not exceed Rs.86,113.12/-as per the policy. It was also pointed out that the learned Commissioner has erred in awarding default interest thereon from the date of accident. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the accident had taken place in the course of employment while the deceased was involved as a helper in the construction work. She was paid a daily wage of Rs.160/-per day. The employer had also filed a counter statement and had candidly admitted that she had worked under them. As such, the employer-employee relationship was proved. The employer construction company had taken policy and insurance extending insurance coverage to its workers. Considering all aspects, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, had passed the well considered order. 13. From the above foregoing discussions and on perusing the impugned award of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the said award. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order. This Court further directs the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, to disburse the said compensation with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the respondents/S.P.Kandaswamy, forthwith, after getting a memo from him. Further, the amount shall be disbursed, after identification of the claimant by the learned counsel, who is appearing for the applicant/claimant. 14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in W.C.No.223 of 2007, on the file of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, dated 31.05.2010, is confirmed. No costs.