JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The disabled workman, while, rendering, his, employment, under his employer, arrayed as co-respondent No.1, in Case No. 06/2 of 2015, sustained disabling injuries, upon, his person, as find reflection, in disability certificate borne, in, Ext. PW-1/B, and, thereupon compensation amount, borne in a sum, of, Rs. 9,76,095/- along with simple interest, at the rate of 12% per annum, till realization, stood assessed, vis-a-vis, the disabled workman, and, the, indemnificatory liability thereof, stood burdened, upon the insurer. 2. During the course of hearing(s) being made, upon, the instant appeal, the following substantial questions of law, arise, for determination:- (i) Whether on the proper application of the provisions of the Employees's compensation Act, the income of the claimant has been correctly determined at Rs. 7,500/- per month and the relevant factor properly applied in working out the compensation of Rs. 9,76,095/-? (ii) Whether the findings of the Commissioner are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence and the inference that the deceased was 25 years of age and his monthly wages were Rs. 7,500/- per month, are sustainable in law? 3. Since the disabling injuries, entailed, upon, the workman, stand, during the course of his rendering his deposition, contained, in, his examination-in-chief, testified to be rather encumbered, during, the course, of, his rendering employment under his employer (i) and, when, thereafter the learned counsel concerned, upon, subjecting him to cross-examination, rather also meted an appropriate suggestion, to him, qua, the injuries being entailed, during, the course of his rendering employment, under his employer, and, whereafter, he, purveyed an, answer thereto, hence in the affirmative, (ii) thereupon it is formidably concluded, qua, the disabling injuries, befalling, hence upon, the workman, obviously standing entailed, upon him, during the course, of, his rendering employment, under his employer, arrayed in the claim petition, as, co-respondent No.1. 4. However, the learned counsel appearing, for the aggrieved insurer, has, contended with much vigor, before this Court, that, though Ext. PW-1/B, casts depictions therein, vis-a-vis, (a), a, progressive, hence 100% permanent disability, standing entailed, upon, the workman, (b) yet, he submits that, since, the contract, of, insurance executed inter-se the insurer, and, insured, and, as borne in Ext. RW-1/B, and, appertaining, to, the covering of risks, of, employees, rather casts reflections, vis-a-vis, 19 therein insured employees, being depicted therein, to, stand liquidated, wages, borne, in, Rs. RW-1/B, and, appertaining, to, the covering of risks, of, employees, rather casts reflections, vis-a-vis, 19 therein insured employees, being depicted therein, to, stand liquidated, wages, borne, in, Rs. 4,53,500, (c) thereupon only, vis-a-vis, the proportionate therewith wages defrayable, to the disabled workman by his employer, constitutes, hence the, pecuniary risk(s) covered thereunder, and, also whereon the requisite factor is enjoined, to, be applied. However, the afore submission(s) cannot be accepted, it being untenable, and, also being bereft, of, apt tenacities, (a) given, the uneroded testification, rendered by co-respondent No.1, the employer of the disabled workman, rathermaking aplomb, and, categorical echoings, conspicuously in his affidavit, borne in Ext. PW-1/A, as, stood tendered into evidence, during, the course of his examination-in-chief, qua, the, per mensem salary, of, the disabled workman, being borne in a sum of Rs. 7,500/-, (d) importantly, also when his employer arrayed, as co-respondent No.1, did not, contest the afore echoings, either by meteing suggestions to him, during, the course of PW-1, being subjected, to, cross-examination, nor adduced any best documentary evidence hence comprised, in, the apposite salary register, casting therein reflections, rather carrying echoings contrary, to, one(s) echoed, by the claimant, in, Ext. PW-1/B, (b) the salutary purpose, behind the execution of the relevant contract, inter-se the insurer, and, the insured rather being jettisoned hence by reducing the risk coverage, bestowed, thereunder, vis-a-vis, the, admitted per mensem salary liquidated, to, the disabled workman, (c) rather for ensuring qua the highest esteem being meted, vis-a-vis, the holistic purpose, behind the contract, of, insurance executed, inter-se the insurer, and, the insured, and, its covering, the, risk, of, employees', (d) thereupon it appears, that, the afore reflection, borne in Ext. PW-1/B, and, in Ext. PW-1/A, rather occurring through sheer inadvertence, and, also with the insured being unmindful, vis-a-vis, the requisite ill-effects, qua upon the workman, suffering disabling injuries, during, the course of his performing employment, the, apposite risk rather being not fully covered, (c) more emphatically, when, the insurer, has not, led any evidence, that, the premium amount liquidated, vis-a-vis, it, by the insured, being not adequate or sufficient, to, hence cover the afore risk, nor, any evidence being adduced, qua rather for fully covering, the, apposite risk, thereupon, a, premium higher than one, as charged by the insurer, from, the insured, being hence chargeable. The substantial questions of law, are, answered accordingly. 4. The substantial questions of law, are, answered accordingly. 4. Be that as it may, the relevant mishap occurred, in, the year 2011, and, the computation, of, compensation is enjoined, to, be made, in, concurrence, with, the provisions, of, Section 4 of the Workman Compensation Act, the, relevant apt provisions are extracted hereinafter:- "4. Amount of compensation.- (1) subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:- (a) Where death results from the injury An amount equal to monthly wages of the deceased (employee) multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of (one lakh and twenty thousand rupees), whichever is more; (b) where permanent total disablement results from the injury an amount equal to (sixty per cent) of the monthly wages of the injured (employee) multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of (one lakh and forty thousand rupees) whichever is more: [Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time, enhance the amount of compensation mentioned in clauses (a) and (b).] (i) since a permanent disablement, stands entailed, upon, the workman, in sequel to the injuries befalling, upon him, during the course of his rendering employment, under his employer, thereupon in consonance, with, Clause (b) of Section 4, of, the Act, only 60%, of 7,500/- comprises the relevant per mensem salary, whereon, hence the apt statutory factor was enjoined to be applied, and, with the learned Commissioner, hence, making determination of compensation, in the afore statutorily enjoined manner, thereupon he has not committed hence any gross fallacy. 5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the appeal filed, by the Insurance Company, and, is hence dismissed and, the impugned award, is, maintained, and, affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.