JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the order passed in W.C.No.389 of 2006, dated 05.02.2009, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirappalli. 2. The appellant is the second respondent in W.C.No.389 of 2006. The first respondent herein has filed the above W.C. stating that while he was in the service of the second respondent as loadman in the load auto, bearing Registration No.TN-55-0525, near Rayavaram, met with an accident and sustained multiple injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Pudukkottai, and subsequently, he took treatment in a private hospital. At the time of accident, the first respondent was aged 20 years and he was getting Rs.6,000/- per month as salary. Due to the accident, he could not do the work as loadman, as done by him before the accident and suffered permanent disability. Since the accident had occurred during and in the course of employment, the second respondent as owner and the appellant as insurer, are liable to pay compensation to the first respondent. 3. The second respondent herein filed counter statement and contended that the first respondent himself fell down from the load auto and sustained injuries. The second respondent denied the monthly income claimed by the first respondent. The second respondent also stated that the compensation claimed is excessive. The vehicle is insured with the appellant Insurance Company and prayed for dismissal of W.C. against the second respondent. 4. The appellant filed counter statement and denied all the averments made in the petition. The appellant contended that the first respondent was not employed by the second respondent and he did not send statutory notice to the second respondent about the accident and also denied the relationship of employer and employee between the respondents 2 and 1 respectively. 5. Before the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirappalli, the first respondent himself examined as P.W.1 and Dr.Selvaraj was examined as P.W.2 and five documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.5. The appellant and the second respondent did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. 6. 5. Before the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirappalli, the first respondent himself examined as P.W.1 and Dr.Selvaraj was examined as P.W.2 and five documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.5. The appellant and the second respondent did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. 6. The Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirappalli, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence of the first respondent and also the fact that the second respondent did not deny that the first respondent was employed by him, held that the first respondent was the employee of the second respondent and the accident had occurred during and in the course of the employment. The Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirappalli, taking into consideration the age of the first respondent and minimum wages fixed by the Government for loadman, applying the formula, awarded a sum of Rs.1,57,743/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurer of the vehicle, has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal raising the following substantial questions of law:- ''1.Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner), Tiruchirappalli, is correct in fastening the liability in toto with the appellant herein? 2. Whether the deceased was a ''Workmen'' and the accident in question has ''arisen in the course of employment'' under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act? 3. Whether the Award of Rs.1,57,743/- fixed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is just and proper and not exaggerated? 4. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Tiruchirappalli, is correct in fastening the liability, if a person has been travelling in a capacity other than the owner of the goods, the insurer would not be liable. The purpose for which the provision had to be amended by Act No.54 of 1994 was to widen the scope of the liability of the Appellant Company? 5. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Tiruchirappalli, is correct in fastening the appellant company could not be mulcted with a liability in the absence of any contract specifically covering any workman, loadman or coolie of the insured? 6. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Tiruchirappalli, is correct in fastening liability without considering the violation of policy condition?'' 7. 6. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Tiruchirappalli, is correct in fastening liability without considering the violation of policy condition?'' 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the first respondent did not issue any statutory notice about the accident to the second respondent and that the first respondent was not employed by the second respondent and that there is no employer and employee relationship between the respondents 2 and 1 respectively. The first respondent was working as loadman under one Arumugam. 8. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the first respondent himself fell down from the load auto and sustained injuries and denied the monthly income claimed by the first respondent. He further submitted that the compensation claimed is excessive and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant for rejection of claim of the first respondent is that the first respondent did not give statutory notice to the second respondent about the accident. On the other hand, the first respondent has stated in the petition that the second respondent was aware of the accident and he promised to settle the amount after getting the same from the appellant. The appellant and the second respondent did not let in any evidence to disprove the said contention of the first respondent. In view of the same, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirappalli, ought to have dismissed the petition for non-issuance of notice lacks merit. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the first respondent is not the employee of the second respondent. In the counter statement filed by the second respondent, the second respondent did not deny that the first respondent was employed by him. On the other hand, the second respondent has stated in the counter statement that the first respondent himself fell down from the load auto and sustained injuries. In the counter statement filed by the second respondent, the second respondent did not deny that the first respondent was employed by him. On the other hand, the second respondent has stated in the counter statement that the first respondent himself fell down from the load auto and sustained injuries. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirappalli, took note of the fact that the appellant has not taken any steps to examine either the second respondent or one Arumugam, under whom the first respondent was alleged to be working as loadman and rejected the contention of the appellant that the first respondent is not an employee of the second respondent at the time of accident. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirappalli, has considered all the materials on record in proper perspective and awarded compensation to the first respondent. There is no error or illegality in the said order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.