JUDGMENT : P. Krishna Bhat, J. 1. These are appeals filed by the insurance company calling in question the legality of the judgment and award dtd. 6/12/2012 in W.C.N.F.Nos.409/2007, 410/2007 and 411/2007 passed by the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Sub-Division-I, Bellary (for short the Commissioner) 2. Brief facts are that the claimants namely, Srivali, Yerriswamy and Venkatesh were stated to be working as cleaner and loaders, respectively, in truck bearing registration No. KA-34/C-2349 owned by respondent-B.Nagaraj and insured with the appellant herein. It is stated that one Mehaboob Pasha was the driver of the said lorry. On 25/5/2007, as per the instructions of the owner of the lorry, B. Nagaraj, these claimants were proceeding in the said lorry, which was loaded with sand and at about 8.30 p.m. while the lorry in question was proceeding near Mundargi Industrial Area, it dashed against a parked lorry bearing registration No. AP-07/0347 and thereafter it capsized and fell into a canal resulting in injuries to these claimants and the driver-Mehaboob Pasha. 3. In response to the claim petitions, the respondent- owner of the lorry, B. Nagaraj, filed written statement admitting that these claimants and the driver Mehaboob Pasha were working in the said lorry and there was employer and employee relationship between himself and the claimants. 4. During the enquiry, these claimants and the driver- Mehaboob Pasha examined themselves as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and they also examined a qualified medical practitioner as a witness. Ex.P.1 to 17 were also marked. The appellant-insurance company examined one of its officials as R.W.1 and policy of insurance and another document were also marked. 5. Upon consideration of the entire materials, the learned Commissioner answered all the points arising for consideration in favour of the claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.1,15,473.00 in favour of the claimant-Srivali, Rs.91,102.00 in favour of the claimant-Yerriswami and Rs.1,09,190.00 in favour of the claimant-Venkatesh with interest at 12% thereon. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer vehemently contended that the claimants in these appeals and also the driver of the vehicle, Mehaboob Pasha, had not suffered any injuries in the accident and the wound certificates produced are got-up documents. He submitted that as per the police complaint, in Ex.P.1, there is a clear statement to the effect that nobody had suffered any injury in the accident. He submitted that as per the police complaint, in Ex.P.1, there is a clear statement to the effect that nobody had suffered any injury in the accident. He therefore submitted that the awards passed by the learned Commissioner are liable to be set aside. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made and also the certified copy of the records made available by the learned counsel for my perusal. 8. Respondent-B.Nagaraj, who is the owner of the truck, in his written statement admitted that claimants had suffered injuries in the accident, which had taken place in the course of and arising from the employment and also the employer and employee relationship. Further, even though in Ex.P.1-complaint lodged by the driver of the parked lorry, there is a mention that nobody was injured in the accident, charge- sheet/Ex.P.2 filed by the police clearly shows that these claimants had suffered injuries. Further, in support of their case, they have produced wound certificates issued by the PHC, Kudithini wherein the injuries suffered by them are clearly reflected. Further, they have examined a qualified medical practitioner as a witness to speak about the injuries and loss in earning capacity suffered by them on account of such injuries. On consideration of the same, learned Commissioner has recorded a finding that they had suffered injuries, which is on account of their employment under respondent-B.Nagaraj, whose lorry was insured with the appellant. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant in these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following: ORDER: The above appeals are dismissed. The amount in deposit, if any, before the registry, shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Senior Civil Judge Court, forthwith. In view of disposal of the appeals, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration.