JUDGMENT : Challenging the Judgment passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner under Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, Belagavi in E.C.A.No.560/2014, this appeal is filed by the Insurer. 2. The respondent No.1 herein is the wife of deceased Sri. Nagappa Sutagatti. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are his minor children and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are his parents. The respondent No.6 herein is the employer and the appellant is Insurer of respondent No.6. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein were the petitioners; respondent No.6 herein was respondent No.1 and the appellant herein was respondent No.2 in E.C.A. No.560/2014, respectively. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their ranks before the Commissioner. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the petitioners filed petition under Section 22 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘E.C. Act’) seeking for compensation on account of death of Sri. Nagappa Shankreppa Sutagatti while under employment with respondent No.1. It was stated that, Sri. Nagappa Sutagatti was working as a coolie under respondent No.1 and was engaged in construction of residential apartment by respondent No.1 at CTS No.751, Gajanan Road, Hindu Nagar, Tilakwadi, Belagavi. At about 5.45 p.m. on 28.12.2013, Sri. Nagappa fell down into a ditch after loosing his balance while lifting cement bag. He was unconscious due to the fall. When taken to BIMS Hospital, he was declared brought dead. It was further stated that, the incident was registered as an unnatural death by the Udyambhag police station, Belagavi and a UD report No.12/2013 was filed. It was further stated that, as on the date of death Sri. Nagappa Sutagatti was hale and healthy and earning Rs.8,000/-per month and that the petitioners were dependent on his income. 4. On service of summons, the respondent No.1, filed objections admitting employment of the deceased Sri. Nagappa Sutagatti as a coolie at the site of construction of apartment. Respondent No.1 further admitted the accident and death of the deceased in the said accident. It was contended that, the deceased died due to not following safety measures and was not wearing helmet during work and therefore, died due to his own negligence. 5. Respondent No.2 – Insurer filed objections denying the petition averments in toto. Respondent No.1 further admitted the accident and death of the deceased in the said accident. It was contended that, the deceased died due to not following safety measures and was not wearing helmet during work and therefore, died due to his own negligence. 5. Respondent No.2 – Insurer filed objections denying the petition averments in toto. It however admitted issuance of policy for covering the risk of respondent No.1, but strongly refuted liability in this case by denying the relationship of employer and employee between the respondent No.1 and the deceased and further contended that the accident did not occur during the course of or out of employment. It was specifically contended that lack of MLC intimation and failure of a respondent No.1 to produce muster roll, wage registers, etc., to establish employment of deceased by respondent No.1 indicated collusion between the petitioner, respondent No.1 and the police. On the said grounds, it sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. Based on pleadings, the following issues were framed for consideration: “1. Whether petitioners prove the existence of jural relationship of employee and employer between deceased Nagappa s/o Shankareppa sutagatti & the Respondent no.1 at the relevant point of time? 2. Whether the petitioners prove that the accident had occurred during the course and out of the employment of the deceased Nagappa Shankareppa Sutagatti with the Respondent No.1 and he died in the said accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, at what rate and from whom? 4. What order?” 7. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 got herself examined as P.W.1 and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.10. On behalf of the respondents, an official of respondent No.2 – Insurer was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits R.1 and R.2 were marked. 8. On consideration of the above, the Commissioner answered issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the affirmative and by assessing compensation at Rs.6,13,760/-with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, payable by respondent No.2, answered issue No.4. Assailing the same, the respondent No.2 – Insurer is in appeal. 9. Sri. Nagaraj C. Kolloori, learned counsel for appellant submitted that, the Commissioner committed grave error in entertaining the petition, without any evidence to establish relationship of employer and employee between respondent No.1 and deceased Sri. Nagappa Sutagatti. Assailing the same, the respondent No.2 – Insurer is in appeal. 9. Sri. Nagaraj C. Kolloori, learned counsel for appellant submitted that, the Commissioner committed grave error in entertaining the petition, without any evidence to establish relationship of employer and employee between respondent No.1 and deceased Sri. Nagappa Sutagatti. It was submitted that, despite specific contention of appellant-Insurer, neither petitioners nor respondent No.1 produced muster roll, attendance register, wage register, etc., to establish employment of deceased with respondent No.1. Further, absence of MLC intimation, failure of police to draw spot panchanama at the spot of the incident, and non-registration of complaint or proceedings against respondent No.1 for death of Sri. Nagappa Sutagatti, indicated collusion between petitioners, respondent No.1 and the police to foist false liability on the insurer. It was further contended that, evidence of petitioners at best was indicative of deceased being employed by sub-contractor of respondent No.1, which risk was specifically excluded as per condition Nos.2, 5 & 6 in the policy. Therefore, Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation awarded. Apart from the above, it was contended that the Commissioner erred in awarding higher compensation by taking income of deceased at Rs.6,000/-even though respondent No.1 employer stated in written statement that deceased was employed on daily wages of Rs.150/-. Learned counsel for the Insurer therefore submitted that, the following substantial questions of law arose for consideration in this appeal: (a) Whether the Commissioner was justified in holding that deceased was a workman under employment of respondent No.1? (b) Whether the Commissioner was justified in awarding compensation and saddling liability on the Insurer even when employer and employee relation was not established? 10. On the other hand, Sri. Kiran Angadi, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that respondents did not dispute death of Sri. Nagappa Sutagatti at the construction site of respondent No.1. The contents of Ex.P.4 – F.I.R, Ex.P.5 – complaint, Ex.P.6 – Inquest Mahazar, Ex.P.7 – Postmortem report, Ex.P.9 – charge-sheet and Ex.P.10 – newspaper publication reporting the incident, etc., sufficiently established that death of Sri. Nagappa was during course of employment. Respondent No.1 unequivocally admitted employment of deceased and proceedings under E.C. Act being summary in nature, strict rules of evidence were not applicable. Nagappa was during course of employment. Respondent No.1 unequivocally admitted employment of deceased and proceedings under E.C. Act being summary in nature, strict rules of evidence were not applicable. The documents placed on record by petitioners sufficiently established the causal connection between the incident and employment of deceased with respondent No.1 and therefore, award of compensation by Commissioner was fully justified. On quantum, it was submitted that, accident occurred in the year 2013, therefore Commissioner was justified in considering income of deceased at Rs.6,000/-per month. It was further submitted that, the findings recorded by the Commissioner were on consideration of evidence on record and were findings of fact. The same cannot be questioned in appeal and as no substantial question of law arose for consideration in this appeal, learned counsel sought for dismissal of appeal. 11. Sri. Chetan Limbikai for Sri. Santosh Malagoudar, learned counsel for respondent No.6 reiterated the submissions of counsel for the petitioners and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. From the above, it emerges that the death of Sri. Nagappa Sutagatti on 28.12.2013 is not in dispute. The relationship of the petitioners with and their dependency on the deceased are also not in dispute. His age on the date of incident as 29 and the factor applied at 209.92 are also not in dispute. The relationship of employer and employee between respondent No.1 and deceased, coverage of risk of employee of sub-contractor, and assessment of monthly income of deceased at Rs.6,000/-are in dispute. 13. In the petition the petitioners have made clear assertions about the employment of deceased respondent No.1 and death of deceased while working at the construction site of respondent No.1. His monthly income was stated to be Rs.8,000/-. In their written statement, respondent No.1 -employer admitted employing deceased and his death at work site while on job. However, respondent No.1 denies monthly income of Rs.8,000/-and states that it was Rs.150/-per day. In view of admission of assertions in claim petition by respondent No.1, relationship of employer and employee between deceased and respondent No.1 is established. The contents of police investigation records namely Complaint – Ex.P.5, F.I.R – Ex.P.4, Charge-sheet – Ex.P.9 duly corroborate this fact. Even the Commissioner has arrived at this finding of fact by referring to the above evidence. It has taken note of summary nature of proceedings and mere denial by respondent No.2. The contents of police investigation records namely Complaint – Ex.P.5, F.I.R – Ex.P.4, Charge-sheet – Ex.P.9 duly corroborate this fact. Even the Commissioner has arrived at this finding of fact by referring to the above evidence. It has taken note of summary nature of proceedings and mere denial by respondent No.2. The same cannot be held as perverse. Therefore, the first proposed substantial question of law does not arise for consideration as it is a finding of fact. 14. The respondent No.2 Insurer has sought to contend that the deceased was an employee of a sub-contractor and as per the terms of the policy, its liability was excluded insofar as employees of sub-contractors. Referring to the contents of Ex.P.5 the complaint given by brother of deceased wherein it was stated that deceased Sri. Nagappa was working under one Sri. Sudhir Laxman Khanagaonkar, and its reiteration in Ex.P.4 – UD report, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence placed on record by the petitioners themselves was indicative of the deceased being employee of sub-contractor and which risk was specifically excluded as per the terms of the policy. The Commissioner while examining the said contention has observed that, it is normal for a coolie to be assigned under a Master Mason and it cannot ipso facto lead to arrive at a conclusion that the Supervisor or Master Mason was a sub-contractor. There is no contra evidence led by Insurer. In the light of specific admission by respondent No.1 about employment of deceased by it, there is no much substance in the said contention. As observed by the Commissioner, the contentions taken by the Insurer are expansive and casual. Hence, even the second substantial question of law proposed does not arise for consideration. 15. Learned counsel for appellant has also sought to challenge the award on quantum on the ground that the Commissioner has considered income of deceased at Rs.6,000/-per month as against admitted payment of Rs.150/-per day by respondent No.1. The Commissioner while determining income has taken note of the date of the incident which was in the year 2013 and determined the monthly income of deceased at Rs.6,000/-. The appellant-Insurer has not made out a case that the same is in excess of the notified minimum wages for construction labour. The same being neither excessive nor exorbitant, does not call for interference by this Court. 16. The appellant-Insurer has not made out a case that the same is in excess of the notified minimum wages for construction labour. The same being neither excessive nor exorbitant, does not call for interference by this Court. 16. In the result, the appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-payable to the petitioners namely respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein. The appellant is directed to deposit the costs before the trial Court. On deposit same shall be disbursed to the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 5. 17. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the trial Court for payment.