JUDGMENT Dr. Shameem Akther, J. - This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 30 of the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923, is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the order, dated 19.05.2008, passed in W.C.No.9 of 2007 by the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour II, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad ( the Commissioner , for brevity). 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record. 3. The respondent No.1/applicant No.1 is the wife, respondent Nos.2 & 3/applicant Nos.2 & 3 are the children and the respondent No.4/applicant No.4 is the mother of the deceased-G.Venkatesh. They filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner contending that the deceased was working on Eicher Van bearing registration No.AP-29-T-3255 under the employment of respondent No.5/owner of the Eicher Van. On 30.03.2006, at about 04:00 AM, when the said Eicher Van reached the outskirts of Dakamarri village of Visakhapatnam District, the driver of the Eicher van drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against a stationed lorry bearing registration No.AP-31-W-72, as a result of which, the deceased, who was sitting in the cabin of the Eicher van, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the appellant/Insurance Company and the respondent No.5/owner of the Eicher Van are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 4. On merits, the learned Commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,73,747/- to the respondent Nos.1 to 4/applicant Nos.1 to 4, holding that the appellant/insurance company and the respondent No.5/owner of the Eicher Van bearing registration No.AP-29-T-3255 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/insurance company preferred this appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company would contend that the deceased-G.Venkatesh was not at all working under the respondent No.5/owner of the Eicher Van bearing registration No.AP-29-T-3255. Therefore, there is no employer-employee relationship between the respondent No.5 and the deceased. Ex.B.1 insurance policy was marked with consent. There is no coverage of risk of the deceased-G.Venkatesh under Ex.B.1 policy. The learned Commissioner erroneously granted compensation holding that the deceased was employed under respondent No.5/owner of the Eicher van and died in the subject accident that occurred during the course of employment. Further, the compensation granted by the learned Commissioner, i.e., Rs. There is no coverage of risk of the deceased-G.Venkatesh under Ex.B.1 policy. The learned Commissioner erroneously granted compensation holding that the deceased was employed under respondent No.5/owner of the Eicher van and died in the subject accident that occurred during the course of employment. Further, the compensation granted by the learned Commissioner, i.e., Rs. 3,73,747/- is excessive and ultimately prayed to set aside the order under challenge and allow the appeal as prayed for. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/applicant Nos.1 to 4 would contend that there is ample oral evidence as well as Ex.A.6-Salary Certificate of the deceased to substantiate the employeremployee relation between the respondent No.5/owner of Eicher Van and the deceased. The learned Commissioner, having considered the same, held that the deceased died during the course of his employment under respondent No.5/owner of the Eicher Van. Further, the learned Commissioner rightly granted the compensation of Rs. 3,73,747/- by taking the age of the deceased as 27 years, age factor as 213.57 and wages as Rs. 3,500/- per month. There is no illegality in the order under challenge and ultimately prayed to sustain the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. 7. In view of the above submissions, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are as follows: 1. Whether the deceased-G.Venkatesh died during the course of his employment under the respondent No.5/owner of the Eicher Van bearing registration No.AP-29-T-3255? 2. Whether the learned Commissioner is justified in granting a compensation of Rs. 3,73,747/- to the respondent Nos.1 to 4/applicant Nos.1 to 4? 3. To what relief? POINTS: 8. There is specific evidence of the wife of the deceased, who was examined as P.W.1, that her husband (deceased) was working as a Supervisor under the respondent No.5/owner of the Eicher Van and was drawing Rs. 3,500/- per month as wages and Rs. 75/- per day as batta. The documentary evidence under Ex.A.1-copy of FIR and Ex.A.2-Attested Xerox copy of PME Report reveals that the deceased died due to the injuries suffered by him in the subject accident that occurred on 30.03.2006, when the Eicher Van in which the deceased was travelling dashed against a stationed lorry bearing registration No.AP-31-W72. No rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the appellant/Insurance Company to disprove the testimony of the P.W.1. No rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the appellant/Insurance Company to disprove the testimony of the P.W.1. Further, the oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.6-Salary certificate of the deceased clinchingly establish that the deceased was working as Supervisor under the employment of respondent No.5/owner of Eicher Van. The learned Commissioner, having analysed the oral and documentary evidence, held that the deceasedG.Venkatesh died due to the injuries suffered by him in the subject accident occurred on 30.03.2006 and the subject accident occurred in the course of his employment under the respondent No.5/owner of the Eicher van. Under these circumstances, the learned Commissioner is justified in recording the said finding. 9. There is ample record to substantiate that the deceased was aged 27 years as on the date of the subject accident and was earning Rs. 3,500/- per month as wages. The learned Commissioner took the age of the deceased as 27 years, age factor as 213.57, wages as Rs. 3,500/- per month and accordingly granted Rs. 3,73,747/- as compensation. In the given circumstances, the learned Commissioner is justified in granting the said compensation. The award of compensation by the learned Commissioner is based on the evidence on record. There is no illegality in the order under challenge. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.