JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. PK Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears for the respondents when the matter was taken up for hearing. 2. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 from the judgment dated 08.06.2015 delivered in T.S. (WC) 25 of 2013 by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala. 3. The facts are mostly admitted. The driver of the truck bearing registration no. AS-11-AC-8264 namely Babul Debnath in the course of his employment on 09.09.2013 at about 9.30 am at Thangskai on the NH 44 met an accident. While he was getting down from the cabin of the vehicle suddenly he fell down on the road, he received serious head injuries and succumbed to those injuries at the spot. Immediately, the accident was informed to the Officer-in-Charge, Lumshuong, Anti Decoity Camp, East Jayantia Hill by the helper of the vehicle namely Pritam Sarkar and the said information was registered in Khliehrait PS U.D. case no. 54 of 2013. The petitioner filed the application under Section 4 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation on the basis of the monthly wage @ Rs. 15,000/- with interest w.e.f. 09.09.2013 till the date of payment. The compensation as claimed was calculated at Rs. 22,68,875/- along with other ancillary expenses which comes to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh. That apart, the claim was also for statutory interest @12% from 09.09.2013. 4. The owner of the vehicle, the respondent no.5 herein, by filing the written statement has clearly admitted that the deceased workman namely Babul Debnath was the driver of the said vehicle bearing registration no. AS-11-AC-8264. She has further admitted that she was paying the deceased a monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/- including fooding etc. After recording the evidence, the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation by the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2015 awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 15,22,450/- with statutory interest @12% per annum from 10.10.2013 i.e. one month after the date of the accident till realization. 5. Mr. PK Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the insurer has submitted that the determination of the monthly wages and the compensation thereon is wholly perverse and that constitute the substantial question of law under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. Mr. 5. Mr. PK Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the insurer has submitted that the determination of the monthly wages and the compensation thereon is wholly perverse and that constitute the substantial question of law under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel has further submitted that there is no documentary evidence in respect of the monthly salary and as such the Commissioner for the Workmen Compensation ought not have believed the statement of the owner. 6. Having scrutinized the records as produced before this court as well as on appreciating the submission made by Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel, this court is of the view that there is no perversity in the finding in respect of the monthly wage as well as the compensation made by the Workmen Compensation as the insurer does not have any role in the matter of payment of the monthly wage. It is the owner who can definitely say that what amount he/she used to pay to the workman. 7. In this regard when the employer and workman’s relation is admitted and the monthly wage as claimed is acceded to by the owner, there cannot be any amount of dispute. In this regard if the insurer seriously intended to challenge the said admission of the owner of the vehicle, then there should have produced such overwhelming evidence to discard the evidence of the owner of the said vehicle, but the insurer did not adduce any evidence to out-weigh the evidence as adduced by the appellant. 8. Hence, this appeal is bereft of merit and accordingly dismissed Send the LCRs forthwith.