N. Chaudhury, J.:- This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the decision of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Guwahati, in WC Case No. 242 of 2001. This appeal was admitted on 18.02.2003 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the monthly income of the claimant assessed at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. by the learned Commissioner by the evidence and materials on record." 2. The facts as available from materials on record are as follows: Smt. Sewali Das, widow of late Tiken Das, lodged a claim with Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, stating that her husband was a driver against opposite party No.2, Sri. Devajit Sarma, in his Maruti Van No. AS-01/G-2385, which met with an accident on 08.09.2001 on way from Guwahati to Jagiroad. The accident took place at Kenduban, Sukurbasti under Khetri P.S., when another vehicle coming from the opposite direction collided with the Maruti Van and in this collision Tiken Das lost his life. 3. Vide GD Entry No. 124 dated 08.09.2001, a case was registered by Khetri PS. being Case No. 151 of 2001 under Sections 2797 3377 3387 304(A)7 427 IPC. Post mortem was held on the dead body in Guwahati Medical College. In the claim petition it was claimed that the victim driver was employed by the opposite party No.2 and that he was drawing salary of Rs. 5,0007- p.m. from the opposite party No.2, Devajit Sarma. As usual no documentary evidence of such salary could be shown by the claimant i.e. the widow of the deceased driver of the vehicle. However, opposite party No.2 (owner) appeared and submitted a written statement, in which it was admitted that Late Tiken Das was his driver and that he used to pay Rs. 5,0007- p.m. as his salary. The opposite party No.2 did not examine himself. However, admission made by him in the written statement, in regard to employment, remains on record. 4. The opposite party No.2 produced policy document under the present appellant bearing Policy No. 1230105/31/2002/11/01399/2000, which was valid upto 26.09.2001. The accident took place on 08.09.2001 and as such the same was covered by the insurance policy. The commissioner of Workmen's Compensation by Award dated 20.11.2002 considered the provision of Section 4(1) Explanation n of the Act and taking the monthly salary at Rs. 4,000/- made calculations as follows; 50% of Rs. 4,000 x 218.47 then the corresponding factor = Rs. The commissioner of Workmen's Compensation by Award dated 20.11.2002 considered the provision of Section 4(1) Explanation n of the Act and taking the monthly salary at Rs. 4,000/- made calculations as follows; 50% of Rs. 4,000 x 218.47 then the corresponding factor = Rs. 4,36,9407-. In addition to the said compensation, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was granted as funeral cost and also 9% interest was given thereon with effect on 08.09.2001. 5. In the light of the aforesaid factual matrix, the substantial question of law framed above has to be considered and decided. It is the case of the appellant that no document was exhibited by the claimants to prove that Rs. 4,0007- p.m. was the income within the meaning of Section 4 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 6. The learned counsel for appellant further argued that the Workmen's compensation Commissioner has merely relied on the ipse dixit of the claimant. Having gone through the claim petition and the materials on record, it appears that the vehicle belongs to the opposite party No.2 and he puts up appearance in the case by filling written statement. Although there is denial on the other points, yet so far as employment of the victim under him and the quantum of salary paid to the victim stand admitted by the owner. 7. Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure starts with the words "Whether admission of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether oral or in writing". Here in this case admission was made in the pleading by the opposite party No.2. The claimant has made oral statement and there is nothing on record to state that such an averment of the claimant was not valid. Admission of the owner/ opposite party No.2 is binding in the Insurance Company, appellant, in view of the valid insurance cover. 8. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the assessment of income by the workmen's Compensation Commissioner is without any materials available on record. 9. In this view of the matter, the substantial question of law has to be decided in the negative and against the appellant. 10. The appeal fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. 11. No order as to cost. 12. 9. In this view of the matter, the substantial question of law has to be decided in the negative and against the appellant. 10. The appeal fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. 11. No order as to cost. 12. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that 50% of the awarded amount was deposited before the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation and there is an order for withdrawal of the said amount. The appellant shall deposit the balance amount within a period of 1 (one) month from today and the claimant shall be at liberty to withdraw the same on proper identification.