ORDER : M. Venkata Ramana, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against order of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur, in W.C. Case No. 39 of 2005 dated 22.02.2008. By the order under appeal, the respondents 1 to 3 together were awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,80,629.44 ps payable by fourth respondent and the appellant jointly and severally. 2. The appellant is the insurer. Respondents 2 and 3 were minors by the date of filing an application for compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Anantapur (Commissioner for short) represented by the first respondent, who is their mother. The fourth respondent was the owner of the tractor-trailer involved in the accident concerned to this case. This tractor-trailer was insured with the appellant by the date of the accident. 3. The claim was on account of death of one Sri. P. Kasinath, a resident of Uravakonda of Anantapur District. The first respondent is his wife. Respondents 2 and 3 are their children. 4. The case of the respondents 1 to 3 before the Commissioner was that on 03.03.2005 at about 7.30 p.m., when the deceased Sri. P. Kasinath, was travelling in tractor-trailer AP 02 L 5256/5257 belonging to fourth respondent, it met with an accident at Marutla III Village, when this tractor-trailer was carrying on paddy hay. The accident was on account of the tractor suffering puncture to one of its tyres and the deceased Sri. P. Kasinath jumped out of the trailer when it was over turning. Sri. P. Kasinath died in that incident, in respect of which a case in Crime No. 15 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 337 and 304 IPC was registered against the driver of the tractor-trailer in Kudair Police Station. 5. Further case of the respondents 1 to 3 before the Commissioner was that it was in the course and during employment Sri. P. Kasinath died and while working for the fourth respondent. They further claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month by the date of death, who was hale and healthy and was 37 years old by then. Thus, they claimed in all Rs. 4,00,000/- towards compensation payable by the appellant and the fourth respondent jointly and severally. 6. The fourth respondent remained ex parte before the Commissioner. 7. They further claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month by the date of death, who was hale and healthy and was 37 years old by then. Thus, they claimed in all Rs. 4,00,000/- towards compensation payable by the appellant and the fourth respondent jointly and severally. 6. The fourth respondent remained ex parte before the Commissioner. 7. The appellant filed a written statement denying entire case set up by the respondents 1 to 3, disputing the status of Sri. P. Kasinath as a workman employed for the purpose of the offending tractor-trailer and that it is not liable to satisfy the claim, while calling it unnecessarily excessive. 8. Basing on the material and pleadings, the Commissioner settled the following issues for the purpose of enquiry. 1. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the workmen compensation Act, 1923 and he met with the accident arising out of and in the course of employment resulting into death? 2. What is the age of the deceased workman at the time of accident? 3. What are the wages paid to the deceased workman at the time of accident? 4. What is the amount of compensation payable? 5. Who are liable to pay compensation? 9. Before the Commissioner, the first respondent examined herself as A.W. 1 and another witness A.W. 2 Sri. Allu Gangadhar, in proof of nature of the accident and to establish that the deceased was a labourer working for the fourth respondent. His evidence was also relied on before the Commissioner to establish the income of the deceased. Ex. A1 to Ex. A4 were marked during enquiry. On behalf of the appellant, no oral evidence was let-in nor any documentary proof. 10. Basing on the material, the Commissioner held that the deceased was employed as a labourer in the offending tractor-trailer by the fourth respondent and thus by the date of the accident, the relationship in between them was that of a workman and employer respectively. Finding that the material is sufficient to prove this accident and involvement of the offending tractor-trailer, applying G.O. Ms. No. 33, the Commissioner awarded the compensation as stated above, treating the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,912/- per month. 11. The appellant has questioned this order in this appeal. 12. Sri. Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. K. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel representing Sri. No. 33, the Commissioner awarded the compensation as stated above, treating the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,912/- per month. 11. The appellant has questioned this order in this appeal. 12. Sri. Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. K. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel representing Sri. N. Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, submitted arguments. 13. In the grounds of appeal, the following substantial questions of law are raised. 1. Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct in holding the deceased as workman when there is no employer-employee relationship? 2. Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct in adopting wages as per G.O. Ms. No. 33, which is not relevant to offending vehicle? They are being considered now. 14. QUESTION No. 1: There is evidence of A.W. 1, the first respondent, to prove the nature of this accident which she had learnt from other labourers, who were travelling in the same tractor-trailer during that time. It is supported by contents of FIR in Ex. A1, Ex. A2 inquest report, Ex. A3 post-mortem certificate and Ex. A4 copy of the charge sheet filed by the police of Kudair Police Station after due investigation against driver of tractor-trailer. 15. The evidence so placed is also supported by A.W. 2 Sri. Allu Gangadhar, S/o. Sri. Rama krishnappa. The evidence of A.W. 1 and A.W. 2 is further proving the income of the deceased by the date of the accident and more particularly, that he was working for the fourth respondent, who was his employer at the time of the accident. 16. The material so placed by the respondents 1 to 3 before the Commissioner was not rebutted in any manner or controverted by leading appropriate evidence by the appellant. It should be noted that the fourth respondent remained ex parte before the Commissioner. 17. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the version of respondents 1 to 3 should be accepted. It is proved that the deceased Sri. P. Kasinath, died during and in the course of employment of fourth respondent when he was working for the purpose of transporting paddy hay at the place of the accident on the offending tractor-trailer. Findings of the Commissioner in this context, stand confirmed. Thus, this question is answered in favour of respondents 1 to 3 and against the appellant. 18. P. Kasinath, died during and in the course of employment of fourth respondent when he was working for the purpose of transporting paddy hay at the place of the accident on the offending tractor-trailer. Findings of the Commissioner in this context, stand confirmed. Thus, this question is answered in favour of respondents 1 to 3 and against the appellant. 18. QUESTION No. 2: The version of the respondents 1 to 3 is that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month, at Rs. 150/- per day as a labourer. Evidence of A.W. 1 and A.W. 2 is on record to this effect. In those circumstances, as seen from the impugned order, the Commissioner applied G.O. Ms. No. 33 Labour II Department, dated 17.07.2004 for the purpose of fixing minimum wages. On such basis, having regard to the age of the deceased, and applying appropriate factor, the compensation was arrived at by the Commissioner. 19. Sri. Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant mainly concentrated on this question of manner adopted in awarding compensation basing on G.O. Ms. No. 33. Learned counsel contended that even if the entire evidence and material placed by the respondents 1 to 3 is considered, on the date of the accident, he was a labourer working on the tractor-trailer belonging to the fourth respondent. Learned counsel contended that what was considered by the Commissioner was with reference to private motor transport in applying G.O. Ms. No. 33 improperly and that G.O. Ms. No. 81 dated 29.03.2001 is concerned to private vehicles, learned counsel pointed out that G.O. Ms. No. 30, which came into force with effect from 27.02.2000 has to be applied. Learned counsel further pointed out that a mazdoor in public transport is described in G.O. Ms. No. 23. Thus, considering the basic wage at Rs. 1,130/- in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 30 and variable dearness allowances (VDA) at Rs. 883.50 ps on the above wages, learned counsel Sri. Naresh Byrapaneni points out that the monthly income or wages to consider in this case is Rs. 2,320.50 ps. On such basis, applying the same factor of 192.14, learned counsel contends that compensation payable is Rs. 2,22,930/- only. Learned counsel also stated that respondents 1 to 3 did not prefer any appeal separately questioning the impugned order. 20. However, Sri. K. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for Sri. 2,320.50 ps. On such basis, applying the same factor of 192.14, learned counsel contends that compensation payable is Rs. 2,22,930/- only. Learned counsel also stated that respondents 1 to 3 did not prefer any appeal separately questioning the impugned order. 20. However, Sri. K. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for Sri. N. Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 contended that minimum wages at Rs. 8,000/- has to be taken into consideration while referring to effect of Amendment to Workmen Compensation Act of 2009. While referring to the monthly income of the deceased proved in this case, learned counsel contended that in fact, the respondents 1 to 3 are entitled for more compensation. 21. The dispute thus appears as to application of either G.O. Ms. No. 33 or G.O. Ms. No. 30. 22. As seen from the order, no reasons are assigned in choosing to application of G.O. Ms. No. 33 dated 17.07.2004 and if it is applicable in case of a labourer working in public transport. In this context, learned counsel for the respondents relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in JAYA BISWAL & Ors. v. BRANCH MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO : (2016) 11 SCC 201 . It was a case, where the claim was made on account of death of a highly skilled driver of lorry and minimum wages at Rs. 8,000/- was taken for the purpose of computation of compensation by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation or Employees Compensation and Hon'ble Supreme Court approved it. 23. In the course of hearing in this appeal, Sri. Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel fairly stated that there is no dispute as to minimum wage being Rs. 8,000/- while stating that the amended Act of 2009 came into force with effect from 09.01.2010. Learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that the ruling relied on for the appellants is essentially a distinguishable basing on the facts. Further, it was a case where the incident concerned occurred subsequent to amended Workmen Compensation Act of 2009 came into force. 24. In the given facts and circumstances, the deceased should be treated as an employee working on the tractor-trailer, as a 'mazdoor', covered by G.O. Ms. No. 30 dated 27.07.2009. In such circumstances, application of G.O. Ms. Further, it was a case where the incident concerned occurred subsequent to amended Workmen Compensation Act of 2009 came into force. 24. In the given facts and circumstances, the deceased should be treated as an employee working on the tractor-trailer, as a 'mazdoor', covered by G.O. Ms. No. 30 dated 27.07.2009. In such circumstances, application of G.O. Ms. No. 33, cannot arise and calculating the compensation payable with reference to basic wage and VDA thereon, applying the same factor at 192.14, the compensation payable stands at Rs. 2,22,930/- as contended by Sri. Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant. 25. Though a passionate appeal is made for respondents 1 to 3 stating that the children, viz. respondents 2 and 3 should be looked after, the burden of which is on the first respondent, who is widow of the deceased, in the light of material on record, it is rather difficult to concede to such plea. The respondents 1 to 3 for the reasons best known, did not choose to prefer an appeal against the order though they are apparently dis-satisfied with it. 26. Therefore, while holding that the appellant and fourth respondent are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 to 3, it has to be modified to Rs. 2,22,930/- than what has been awarded by the Commissioner. Thus, this question is answered. 27. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in-part modifying the order of the Commissioner for workmen, Anantapur, in W.C. No. 39 of 2005 dated 22.02.2008, awarding of compensation of Rs. 2,22,930/- payable by fourth respondent and appellant jointly and severally and to respondents 1 to 3. This amount shall be subjected to proper distribution as per Workmen Compensation Act by the Commissioner, in which process, consideration must be given to the fact that respondents 2 and 3 are minors and their welfare. No costs. Interim orders if any, stand vacated. All pending petitions, stand closed.