Judgment 1. By consent of both sides, this civil miscellaneous appeal itself is taken up for final disposal, when the application in M.P.(MD).No.3 of 2014, filed by the claimants seeking permission to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited is listed. 2. On 15.09.2008, the lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-29-T-9372, a Goods Carriage, owned by the 5th respondent herein and insured with the appellant, carried goods relating to a marriage seer varisai of the daughter of one Nicholus from Thiruverumbur to a village called, Palinganatham, near Lalgudi. According to the claimants, the lorry carried also 58 gratuitous passengers, contrary to the permit as well as conditions of the policy. The lorry capsized and involved in an accident, due to the negligent driving of the driver and the same resulted in the death of one Aron Raj and also 53 persons got injured. The persons, who got injured, preferred Motor Accident Claim Petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals. The legal heirs of Aron Raj, who was employed as a Cleaner in the lorry, made a claim under the Workmen Compensation Act, in W.C.No.9 of 2009, before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy, claiming compensation, for the death of Aron Raj. 3. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the wife of the deceased has been examined as P.W.1 and documents Ex.P.1 to P.10 were marked. The claimants also examined the driver of the vehicle as the 2nd witness and his Driving License was marked as an exhibit. The Appellant Insurance Company has examined his Officer and marked exhibits Exs.R.1 to R.4. Exs.P.10 and R.1 are one and the same and this document is the Insurance Policy. 4. The owner of the vehicle/5th respondent herein remained exparte before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and has also not chosen to appear before this Court also. 5. The Insurance Company disputed the employment of Mr.Aron Raj as Cleaner in the lorry. According to the Insurance Company, he was also a gratuitous passenger. Hence, the claim under the Workmen Compensation Act shall be rejected. 6. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Workmen Compensation), Act rejected the contention of the appellant and passed an order, granting a sum of Rs.3,59,480/- as compensation. 7. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal against the aforesaid order. 8. Heard both sides. 9. Hence, the claim under the Workmen Compensation Act shall be rejected. 6. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Workmen Compensation), Act rejected the contention of the appellant and passed an order, granting a sum of Rs.3,59,480/- as compensation. 7. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal against the aforesaid order. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the deceased Aron Raj was also a gratuitous passenger like other persons, who got injured and he was not employed as Cleaner. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the issue as to whether the deceased was a workman or not is a pure question of fact and the finding of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Workmen Compensation), Trichirappali could not be interfered with, under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act. He took me through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 11. I have considered the submissions made by either side and perused the records. 12. Ex.P.1 is the F.I.R given immediately after the accident. It was given by one of the passengers, who has travelled in the lorry, who belongs to the marriage party. In the F.I.R, he stated that a person died in the accident and his name and other particulars are not known to him. Therefore, it could be inferred that he did not belong to marriage party. That should be read along with evidence of driver of the vehicle, who deposed that Aron Raj was working as a Cleaner in the lorry. The deceased wife also gave evidence that he was working as a Cleaner in the lorry. Further, legal notice was sent to the owner through RPAD about the employment, accident and also claiming compensation. Notice was received and the same was not denied. The owner did not choose to appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Workmen Compensation). The Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.P.10 (Ex.R.1). The Insurance Policy provides coverage for three persons (driver + 2 persons) i.e if Aron Raj was employed, he is also covered. 13. On the other hand, the Insurance Company is not able to establish that Thiru.Aron Raj is not at all employed in the lorry. The evidence of the officer of the Insurance Company Mr.Varun Kumar spoke about the death of Aron Raj, based on F.I.R. He did not know anything directly. 13. On the other hand, the Insurance Company is not able to establish that Thiru.Aron Raj is not at all employed in the lorry. The evidence of the officer of the Insurance Company Mr.Varun Kumar spoke about the death of Aron Raj, based on F.I.R. He did not know anything directly. Hence, his evidence could not help the appellant to prove their version. In this case, the legal heirs of the deceased person approached the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Workmen Compensation) and proved their claim and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Workmen Compensation) recorded factual finding, based on the available evidence on record. Since it is the factual findings of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Workmen Compensation) that the deceased is a workman employed by the owner, no question of law is involved, particularly when the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour cannot be termed as perverse. 14. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount. Consequently, connected M.P.No.3 of 2014 is closed. No costs.