Judgment : 1. The appellant Insurance Company/2nd opposite party in the proceedings filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the award passed in W.C.NO.66 of 2001 on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation-Deputy Commissioner of Labour, dated 25.01.2002. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5/claimants 1 to 5. Inspite of service of notice and printing the name of sixth respondent in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of the sixth respondent. 3. The respondents 1 to 5/claimants filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs.1,78,490/-for the death of one N.Subramani in a motor accident occurred on 13.12.2000. 4. Briefly the case of the claimants is that the deceased was working as a loadman under the sixth respondent/first opposite party's van bearing Registration No.TN-59-B-0356. On 13.12.2000 at about 17.00 hours, the deceased while, unloading the Conebags from the above said van and at that time, one Conebag was fell down on the deceased, in which the deceased was sustained head injuries and died on the way to Government Hospital. It is also the case of the claimants is that the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased and the deceased was earned a sum of Rs.80/- per day and therefore claimed compensation from the sixth respondent, who is the first opposite party and also from the appellant Insurance Company which is the second opposite party in the claim petition. 5. The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation-Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai after considering both sides' evidence and finally held that the deceased was employed under the sixth respondent herein and during the course of the employment, the accident was occurred and therefore, as a owner, the sixth respondent is liable to pay compensation. It is further held that since the above said vehicle owned by the sixth respondent was duly insured with the appellant Insurance Company, the appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 6. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation-Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, considering the age and other relevant factors finally awarded a sum of Rs.2,28,736/- as compensation to the claimants. 7. Aggrieved by the above said award passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation-Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, the appellant Insurance Company alone prepared this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 8. 7. Aggrieved by the above said award passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation-Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, the appellant Insurance Company alone prepared this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 8. This Court has admitted the above said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the Commissioner has grossly erred in fastening liability on the Insurance Company in a vase where the deceased was not an employee of the employer/insured 6th respondent? 2. Whether the Commissioner has grossly erred in providing indemnity to the employer Anand Mills under the policy of Insurance availed by the sixth respondent? 3. Whether the finding that deceased workman can be said to have been employed by sixth respondent is acceptable in law.?" 9. The learned Counsel for the appellant mainly contended that at the time of accident, the deceased was not an employee under the sixth respondent herein and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation as per the policy of Insurance issued by the appellant. 10. On a careful perusal of the materials available on record, particularly the award passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation-Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, it revealed that the claimants have clearly proved by necessary oral and documentary evidence as the accident took place during the course of the employment and the deceased was employed under the sixth respondent herein. 11. Per contra, on the side of the appellant Insurance Company has not adduced any acceptable oral and documentary evidence to disprove the above said fact. The witness examined by the Insurance Company is not an eye-witness to the occurrence, but the above said witness only deposed regarding the employer and employee relationship. The appellant failed to prove the contention that no employer and employee relationship by reliable evidence. The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation has discussed in detail about the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the claimants and finally held that the claimants have proved the relationship of employer and employee and the deceased was died only during the course of employment. Therefore, the above findings of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation is correct and hence, there is no need to interfere with the above said finding. 12. Therefore, the above findings of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation is correct and hence, there is no need to interfere with the above said finding. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant also contended that the claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.1,78,490/- in the claim petition, but the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation wrongly awarded a sum of Rs.2,28,736/-without any reasons and therefore, the award passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation is highly excessive and the award is liable to be reduced. 13. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the claim petition, the claimant has stated in paragraph No.3 of the claim petition that for computing compensation, the income has to be taken as Rs.2,000/-per month as per amended Workmen Compensation Act. But the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation has wrongly fixed the monthly income as Rs.2,535/- and therefore, the above said award passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation is illegal and also excessive. 14. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, in the claim petition the claimants have stated as only a sum of Rs.2,000/-has to be taken as monthly income as per the amended Workmen Compensation Act. The Commissioner has not taken into consideration the above said averments made in the claim petition. 15. In the above said circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, the above said amount has to be taken and accordingly, the claimants are entitled only for a sum of Rs.1,78,490 as compensation. 16. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the award passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation-Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai is reduced from Rs.2,28,736/- to Rs.1,78,490/-. The Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the excess amount paid by the Insurance Company. The claimants are also entitled to withdraw the modified amount of Rs.1,78,490/-. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.