JUDGMENT : 1. The United Insurance Company Limited is the appellant and the appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 18.09.2017 passed in WC No.73 of 2017. 2. The substantial question of law raised by the appellant are as under: “(1) Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour can award compensation to person not coming under the purview of Workman as defined under Section 2(n) of the Act and accident not occurring during the course of employment as far as appellant herein is concerned? (2) Whether the Authority has jurisdiction to entertain the above claim as far as the appellant herein is concerned? (3) Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour was correct in holding that the appellant is liable inspite of the fact that the policy was unenforceable in respect of the said risk for the manner and place of accident? (4) Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour was correct in directing the appellant to pay the compensation contrary to the Trade category agreed between the insured and insurance company?” 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly contended that fixing the liability on the appellant/insurance company is admittedly in violation of the policy conditions. As per the policy, there is no coverage for the claimant/workman. In the present case, what is covered is for the skilled employees and it was not established that the person died was performing the skilled job in the accident spot. Relying on the said factual situation, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour erroneously proceeded on the basis that the deceased was a skilled workman. Per contra, he was one of the labourers engaged to dig a pit in the nearby site by a subcontractor, namely, one Murugesan and those facts were suppressed in the application and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour also proceeded on the footing that he was performing the skilled job as stated in the policy. Therefore, the employer and the employee in this case colluded with each other and filed an application by suppressing the facts to get the compensation from the appellant/insurance company. It is evidently clear that the said sub-contractor - Murugesan was not brought into the picture at all. He was not added as a party in the claim petition. Therefore, the employer and the employee in this case colluded with each other and filed an application by suppressing the facts to get the compensation from the appellant/insurance company. It is evidently clear that the said sub-contractor - Murugesan was not brought into the picture at all. He was not added as a party in the claim petition. Therefore, there are many contradictions in respect of the sub-contractor – Murugesan and the FIR speaks that the sub-contractor Murugesan is responsible for the accident. However, in the claim petition, there is no mentioning about the sub-contractor - Murugesan. Thus, the factual contradiction reveals that in order to fix the liability on the appellant/insurance company, the claimants as well as the employer together twisted the facts and filed the claim petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3/claimants opposed the contention by stating that the deceased worker was employed as workman and he was performing the skilled job. The factum regarding the accident was established and the FIR was filed and the death occurred during the course of the employment and the employer-employee relationship also established. This being the factum, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has rightly considered the facts and circumstances and awarded the compensation by fixing the liability on the appellant/insurance company. Thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Considering the arguments, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the claim petition, the claimants have not spelt out anything about the sub-contractor - Murugesan. Contrarily, the claim petition was filed merely by stating that the deceased was performing the industrial work and, more specifically, the skilled work as stated in the insurance policy. Therefore, the contention of the appellant in this regard is to be considered whether the claim petition is filed stating that the deceased was doing the skilled work only for the purpose of claiming compensation from the insurance company based on the policy or not. In this regard, it is relevant to consider the FIR which was filed by the Inspector of Police, Upper Coonoor Police Station. The FIR reveals that the details of known/suspected/unknown accused with full particulars (OTHER LANGUAGE). Therefore, there is specific mentioning of the name of Murugesan/sub- contractor in the FIR. The complainant/Perumal, who was working with the deceased persons also belongs to the same village of the deceased/claimants. The FIR reveals that the details of known/suspected/unknown accused with full particulars (OTHER LANGUAGE). Therefore, there is specific mentioning of the name of Murugesan/sub- contractor in the FIR. The complainant/Perumal, who was working with the deceased persons also belongs to the same village of the deceased/claimants. Thus, Perumal, who was an eye witness to the incident and gave information to the Police and the Inspector of Police, registered the case in Crime No. 323 of 2016, dated 22.12.2016. Therefore, the facts narrated in the FIR are certainly relevant for the purpose of understanding the facts with reference to the facts stated in the claim petition. Thus, this Court inclined to extract the FIR, which reads as under:- OTHER LANGUAGE 6. The policy admittedly was in force. However, the details of the coverage stipulates only skilled employees and the deceased being the unskilled workman, there is no coverage under the policy. The policy coverage stipulates as under: Details of Employees Covered: Description of Employees Worker Type Declared number of employees Declared monthly wage/employee Declared wages during the period of insurance Place/places of employment Trade category Sub trade category 1 Skilled 1 10,700 1,28,400 Electric refrigerators and air conditioners assembling installation maintenance and repairs Commercial purpose 1 Skilled 1 10,700 1,28,400 Plumber hotwater and sanitary engineers where carried on as separate trade Retail ishop risk 1 Skilled 1 10,700 1,28,400 Carvers in stone, masons and monumental masons where carried on as a separate trade On others 1 Skilled 1 10,700 1,28,400 Welders where carried on as a separate trade Welder where carried on as a separate trade 1 Skilled 1 4,500 54,000 Carvers in stone, masons and monumental masons where carried on as a separate trade On others 1 Skilled 1 10,500 1,26,000 Carpenters and joiners who only undertake contracts for woodwork Woodworking machinist 1 Skilled 1 10,500 1,26,000 Paint colour and ENAMAL MFGRS Where red or white led manufactured 7. With reference to the FIR as well as the policy coverage, the facts stated in the claim petition are to be considered. The claim petition states that the deceased was a workman engaged for only work and he was doing the skilled work. However, during the cross-examination by the insurance company, Dinesh Nagarajan, Administrative Manager, has stated that there was no sub-contract in favour of one Murugesan. Regarding the investigation conducted by the police, he stated that he has no knowledge. The claim petition states that the deceased was a workman engaged for only work and he was doing the skilled work. However, during the cross-examination by the insurance company, Dinesh Nagarajan, Administrative Manager, has stated that there was no sub-contract in favour of one Murugesan. Regarding the investigation conducted by the police, he stated that he has no knowledge. However, the suggestion made that more than thirty labourers were working under the sub-contract of Murugesan is also not accepted. Thus, it is clear that there is no contradiction with reference to the facts and circumstances spelt out by the complainant, who was a co-worker as well as the management witness - Dinesh Nagarajan. The statement of the management witness cannot be trusted upon in view of the fact that the facts narrated in the FIR based on the complaint given by the co-worker seems to be cogent and the name of the sub-contractor - Murugesan was stated in column no.7 of the FIR as suspected accused. The contention was that no safety equipments were granted to these industrial labourers while digging the pit and, therefore, the sub-contractor was stated as suspected accused. 8. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour merely proceeded on the basis of the claim petition as well as based on the statement given by the fourth respondent/Management - Alpha Electricals. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour has not gone into the details regarding the FIR as well as the contentions in the claim petition and the contradictions pointed out by the insurance company in this regard. Importantly, soon after the accident, the fourth respondent/Management has not informed the same to the insurance company. It is required under Rule 2 to provide such information to the insurance company enabling them to conduct inspection. This being the Rule to be followed, the same also admittedly has not been done. Therefore, this Court is bound to draw the factual inference that the deceased employee is an unskilled labourer engaged by the sub-contractor to perform certain works in favour of the fourth respondent/Management of Alpha Electricals, who was engaged by the principal employer, namely, respondents 5 and 6. The factual inference is unavoidable in view of the contradictions in the statement by the co-labourers and by the management witnesses. However, the facts in the claim petition is not co-relating with the facts regarding the occurrence spelt out by the complainant before the police. The factual inference is unavoidable in view of the contradictions in the statement by the co-labourers and by the management witnesses. However, the facts in the claim petition is not co-relating with the facts regarding the occurrence spelt out by the complainant before the police. Thus, this Court is not inclined to appreciate the findings of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. However, the claimants are entitled for compensation under the statute. The factum regarding the accident was established. The employer-employee relationship was also established. The accident occurred during the course of the employment. Thus, the right of compensation under the statute cannot be denied to the claimants, and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the liability is to be shifted from the appellant insurance company to the employers. In the present case, respondents 5 and 6 are the principal employers and the fourth respondent is the company who was engaged by the principal employers and the fourth respondent further engaged the work to the sub-contractor - Murugesan to perform certain works by the deceased workers. Thus, respondents 4 to 6 are jointly liable to pay compensation to the claimants/respondents 1 to 3. Accordingly, respondents 4 to 6 are directed to deposit the awarded compensation with accrued interest within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement and on such deposit, respondents 1 to 3/claimants are permitted to withdraw the awarded amount by filing an appropriate application and the payments are to be made through RTGS. 9. Accordingly, the award dated 18.09.2017 passed in W.C.No. 73 of 2017 is set aside as far as the appellant/United Insurance Company is concerned and the C.M.A.No. 1153 of 2020 stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10. The appellant/insurance company is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount with accrued interest by filing an appropriate application before the authority concerned.