ORDER : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act cum Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ongole (for short the Commissioner) in W.C. case No.50 of 2005 dated 17.04.2006. 2. The appellants were applicants and the respondents were the respondents before the Commissioner. 3. The first appellant is the wife of Sri late Cheeraboyina Venkateswarlu and respondents 2 as well as 3 are their son and daughter respectively. Sri Cheeraboyina Venkateswarlu died in an accident on 10.04.2005 at about 10.00 a.m. when the tractor-trailer AP 27 D 8358/8359, by which he was travelling met with an accident opposite to tobacco godown of Sri Maddi Lakshmaiah on National Highway No.5. On account of injuries suffered by him in that accident when he was taken to Government Hospital at Chilakaluripet, he died during course of treatment. 4. As legal heirs, presenting an application before the Commissioner, the appellants claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- payable with costs and interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The first respondent was the owner of the aforesaid tractor-trailer and the second respondent was then the insurer of this vehicle on the date of the accident. 5. In their claim application before the Commissioner, the appellants contended that the deceased Sri Cheeraboyina Venkateswarlu was working as a labourer for the first respondent on the tractor-trailer and used to get Rs.100/- or more per day. They further contended that the deceased Venkateswarlu died on account of injuries received during and in the course of employment of the first respondent and therefore both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to satisfy their claim. 6. The first respondent did not choose to file a counter resisting the claim of the appellants before the Commissioner. 7. The second respondent alone filed a counter disputing the entire claim and denying that there was jural relationship of master and servant between the first respondent and the deceased Sri Venkateswarlu. It also denied the nature of the accident contending that the deceased died due to his own negligence. It also denied that the offending tractor-trailer was insured with it and called the claim excessive. 8. Basing on the material, the Commissioner settled the following issues for enquiry. “1. It also denied the nature of the accident contending that the deceased died due to his own negligence. It also denied that the offending tractor-trailer was insured with it and called the claim excessive. 8. Basing on the material, the Commissioner settled the following issues for enquiry. “1. Whether the deceased was a workman falling under the definition of the Act and died due to accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under the 1st respondent? 2. If so, what is the age and wage of the deceased? 3. To which relief the applicants are entitled to? 4. What is the extent of liability of the respondents in payment of compensation?” 9. In the course of enquiry, the first appellant examined herself as A.W.1 and another Sri R.Subba Rao, who was travelling along with the deceased Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu at the time of accident as A.W.2, while relying on Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 (However, in the order of the Commissioner, Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 alone are referred in the appendix of evidence and whereas the material record shows that Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 were also marked during enquiry). On behalf of the respondents, the first respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and no oral evidence was let-in on behalf of the second respondent, who however relied on Ex.R1 – the policy of insurance of this tractor-trailer. 10. On the material, the Commissioner held that the jural relationship between the deceased Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu and the first respondent was not established as master and servant and that the deceased did not work on the tractor-trailer of the first respondent as a labourer. Except on issue No.1, no findings were recorded by the Commissioner on issues 2 to 4. On such premise by the impugned order, the application of the appellants was dismissed. 11. It is against this order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellants. 12. Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the second respondent addressed arguments. The first respondent though served notice in this appeal, did not choose to enter appearance through an advocate. 13. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether relationship between the deceased Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu and the first respondent as the employee and employer on the date of the accident is established? 2. The first respondent though served notice in this appeal, did not choose to enter appearance through an advocate. 13. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether relationship between the deceased Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu and the first respondent as the employee and employer on the date of the accident is established? 2. Whether the appellants are entitled for compensation as claimed against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally? 3. Whether the order under appeal is justified? 14. POINT No.1 : On 10.04.2005, A.W.2 Sri R.Subba Rao hired the tractor of the first respondent for transporting dried hay from his agricultural land at Muktheswaram, as fodder for the cattle at his house. A.W.2 Sri R.Subba Rao, deposed before the Commissioner in that respect. He further deposed that this tractor-trailer was going to Ganapavaram from the fields of Muktheswaram. 15. At the place of the accident on National High Way No.5, as is reflected in Ex.A2 copy of inquest report dated 11.04.2005 a lorry driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against this tractor-trailer from behind at the tobacco godown of Sri Maddi Lakshmaiah. The identity of this lorry could not be established as per its contents. Ex.A1 copy of First Information Report also refers to this fact. Further reference seen in Ex.A1 FIR is that A.W.2 Sri R.Subba Rao and the deceased Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu were sitting in this tractor-trailer behind the driver and on account of impact when the lorry dashed this tractor, both of them fell down. It further states as to admission of the deceased Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu in Government Hospital, at Chilakaluripet, where he died while undergoing treatment. The contents of Ex.A1 are corroborated by the contents of Ex.A2. Ex.A3 is the copy of Postmortem report relating to such examination conducted on the dead body of the deceased Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu. 16. Ex.A1 copy of FIR also stated that the offending tractor-trailer was hired by A.W.2 Sri R.Subba Rao at that time. Contents of Ex.A2 inquest report are that he got loaded the dried hay in that tractor-trailer with the assistance of the deceased Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu. 17. A.W.1 -the wife of the deceased, who came to know of this accident later and was not an eye witness to this accident and therefore, she could not depose giving it’s details. 18. R.W.1 was then the owner of the offending tractor-trailer. He deposed about this fact. 17. A.W.1 -the wife of the deceased, who came to know of this accident later and was not an eye witness to this accident and therefore, she could not depose giving it’s details. 18. R.W.1 was then the owner of the offending tractor-trailer. He deposed about this fact. However, he stated that Sri P.Srinivasulu, who is his brother, was looking after the affairs of this tractor. 19. The second respondent insurer sought to question the claim of ownership of this tractor-trailer by the first respondent as seen from its counter as well as cross-examination of R.W.1. However, such stand of the second respondent is not correct, since Ex.R1 – a copy of certificate of insurance filed by it clearly described the first respondent as the owner of this tractor-trailer. 20. Ex.A6 copy of Registration Certificate of this tractor-trailer further confirms this fact. It should also be noted that R.W.1 was not cross-examined on behalf of the second respondent insurer before the Commissioner with reference to Ex.A5 copy of policy of insurance or Ex.R1 copy of certificate of insurance. In the above circumstances, such denial cannot stand. Rightly, Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned standing counsel for second respondent did not address arguments attaching importance to this fact. 21. The above circumstance is considered in view of the particular defence raised by the second respondent before the Commissioner denying the jural relationship between the deceased Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu and the first respondent. The first respondent as R.W.1 specifically deposed that the deceased Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu worked as a labourer for him. 22. In the presence of such a direct admission from the first respondent establishing the jural relationship between himself and the deceased Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu, it cannot be stated that there was no such relationship. The appellants could not produce any documentary evidence to support their stand. But, they cannot be expected to produce such material. It is for the first respondent (R.W.1) to produce it. When he admitted this fact there is no necessity to call for documentary proof since admitted facts need not be proved. The Commissioner basing on the oral evidence of A.W.1 and A.W.2 as well as R.W.1 observed that such relationship was not proved. It is not a correct finding recorded nor based on the material on record. Therefore, this finding of the Commissioner has to be set aside. 23. The Commissioner basing on the oral evidence of A.W.1 and A.W.2 as well as R.W.1 observed that such relationship was not proved. It is not a correct finding recorded nor based on the material on record. Therefore, this finding of the Commissioner has to be set aside. 23. Hence, it is now held that the deceased Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu was working for the first respondent at the time of the accident. The material on record proved such jural relationship in between them. Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu died in the course of the employment for the first respondent, when he was returning on the tractor that had met with the accident, in which he suffered injuries. It is further established that it was during and in the course of employment of the deceased Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu for the first respondent, this accident occurred. Thus, this point is answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. 24. POINT No.2: The evidence of the first appellant as A.W.1 makes out that the deceased was earning Rs.100/- per day when he was working as a labourer for the first respondent. Though he is described in the application being 35 years old on the date of the accident, it could not have been so. The ages of the appellants do not lend support to this fact. Unfortunately, Ex.A2 inquest report also described him being 35 years old. He should have been 45 years old by the date of the accident, which inference has to be drawn in the circumstances of the case. A couple, who were stated to be 35 years and 30 years old, namely Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu (the deceased) and the first appellant by the date of the accident could not have had the issues, who were then 17 years and 14 years old respectively as is the case of appellants 2 and 3. 25. On behalf of the second respondent, the wages which the deceased was earning by the date of the accident were not disputed before the Commissioner nor any contention was raised in respect thereof. 26. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the deceased was only a gratuitous passenger on the offending tractor-trailer at the time of the accident and even otherwise having regard to seating capacity of the same, in view of Ex.R1 Certificate of Insurance, risk of such individual travelling on the tractor-trailer was not covered. 26. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the deceased was only a gratuitous passenger on the offending tractor-trailer at the time of the accident and even otherwise having regard to seating capacity of the same, in view of Ex.R1 Certificate of Insurance, risk of such individual travelling on the tractor-trailer was not covered. In this context, learned standing counsel also relied on RAMASHRAY SINGH v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. AND OTHERS, 2003 ACJ 1550 of Hon’ble Supreme Court contending that unless such risk is covered upon payment of required premium, as special contract the insurer cannot be made liable. 27. In order to appreciate this contention, the facts in this case must necessarily be looked into. As seen from copy of Certificate of Insurance produced before the Commissioner in Ex.R1, there is no indication that the tractor-trailer in question was insured only for such purpose though the policy was issued under ‘Farmers Package’ suggesting that this vehicle should only be used for farming and agricultural activity. If such conditions and clauses, which are expected to be enclosed to the Certificate of Insurance, were made available in the course of enquiry before the Commissioner, it would have been more appropriate. When the insurer is relying on such circumstance to save or restrict its liability and to contend that the contract of insurance is confined only to such an extent, the entire policy document should have been produced before the Commissioner. 28. In this context, it is desirable to refer Ex.A5 a copy of policy of insurance produced on behalf of the appellants before the Commissioner. It has not been specifically questioned or challenged on behalf of the second respondent insurer before the Commissioner. Its authenticity as such is not in dispute. Ex.A5 indicates that the policy had a facility covering employees not exceeding ‘6’ in number while restricting its application, covering the risk of passengers travelling in this tractor-trailer. Though the deceased was an employee of the first respondent, it prevails. This endorsement appearing on the copy of insurance policy in Ex.A5 was not questioned before the Commissioner. It was a contract between the respondents inter se in terms of Section (47)(1)(b) proviso (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Limited application of this insurance contract cannot be called for in the circumstances. This endorsement appearing on the copy of insurance policy in Ex.A5 was not questioned before the Commissioner. It was a contract between the respondents inter se in terms of Section (47)(1)(b) proviso (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Limited application of this insurance contract cannot be called for in the circumstances. Similar endorsement is not seen or any indication is reflected in respect thereof in Ex.R1 certificate of insurance. It is the reason, which prompts to hold that the entire document of this certificate of insurance was not produced before the Commissioner enclosing all conditions and clauses. 29. In the light of the above endorsement of this policy of insurance (Ex.A5), the liability of insurer vis-à-vis the first respondent, stands. In the sense, the relationship between the deceased Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu and the first respondent as servant and master as per the findings on point No.1 is proved. On account of this subsisting contract of insurance between respondents inter se, the second respondent is bound to indemnify any claim against the first respondent in terms thereof. 30. Nonetheless, basing on the material, it is rather difficult to accept the contention of Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for second respondent that the policy of insurance in this case did not cover the risk of such persons as in the case of the deceased Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu. 31. Though the first respondent as R.W.1 deposed that he come forward to help the appellants in this matter to get insurance benefit, in the light of the situation observed in this case, it cannot be inferred that there was collusion between the appellants and the first respondent to make a false claim against the second respondent insurer. The death of Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu, in the accident involving the offending tractor is proved and the nature of relationship between both the respondents under the contract of insurance is also proved. Therefore, the second respondent is liable jointly and severally along with the first respondent towards the claim of the appellants. 32. The compensation in terms of Workmen Compensation Act should be awarded strictly in terms thereof, Schedule – IV of this Act should be considered apart from the effect of Section 4(1)(a). Therefore, the second respondent is liable jointly and severally along with the first respondent towards the claim of the appellants. 32. The compensation in terms of Workmen Compensation Act should be awarded strictly in terms thereof, Schedule – IV of this Act should be considered apart from the effect of Section 4(1)(a). For the purpose of evaluating compensation, an amount equal to 50% of monthly wages of the deceased should be taken and it should be multiplied by relevant factor as set out in schedule IV of this Act. 33. Basing on the material, the wages of the deceased is considered at Rs.3000/-per month or at Rs.100/-per day, for the computation of compensation. Having regard to age of the deceased at 45 years, relevant factor applicable is 169.44. The compensation to be computed on such basis and to award, is Rs.2,54,160/-. It is the compensation, which the appellants are entitled to on account of the death of Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu, in the accident in question. The first respondent stood indemnified on account of policy of insurance, which this tractor-trailer had, covering such risk on the date of the accident. Therefore, the second respondent insurer is liable to pay the same to the appellants. 34. In usual course, this appeal should have been remanded to the Commissioner in as much as no findings are recorded on issues 2 to 4 that cover the question relating to computation of compensation and in arriving at liability of both the respondents. This appeal itself is of the year 2006 and the alleged accident occurred on 10.04.2005 basing on which an application for compensation was filed before the Commissioner in the year 2005. In the above circumstances, if this matter is remanded to the Commissioner after 15 years, it would be highly improper and may remain travesty of Justice. After 1½ decades, the parties cannot be driven to go to the Commissioner once again to get this matter finalized. Added to it, there is material on record to decide these questions and conscious of this fact, learned counsel for the parties also addressed arguments. 35. Thus, this point is held in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. 36. Added to it, there is material on record to decide these questions and conscious of this fact, learned counsel for the parties also addressed arguments. 35. Thus, this point is held in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. 36. POINT No.3: In view of the findings on points 1 and 2, the order of the Commissioner requires interference in as much as the material on record was not considered properly and the findings recorded are not correct. Hence, this order has to be set aside. 37. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Ongole, in W.C.No.50 of 2005, dated 17.04.2006. Consequently, the claim of the appellants is allowed awarding a compensation of Rs.2,54,160/- with costs and with future interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the accident till deposited before the Commissioner in terms of Section 4-A(3) of Workmen Compensation Act against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Ongole, is directed to disburse the amount so awarded and is deposited to the credit of this case strictly in accordance with the Workmen Compensation Act, without insisting any security to the appellants (the applicants). All pending petitions stand closed.