JUDGMENT : V. SUJATHA, J. 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out an order dated 21.04.2005 passed in W.C. No. 128 of 2004 by the Commissioner for Wokmen’s Compensation and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, awarding compensation of Rs.4,40,875/- and directing the opposite parties I to IV to deposit the said amount along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realization by way of demand draft in favour of the Commissioner for Wokrmen’s Compensation and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool drawn on State Bank of India, Kurnool, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which, they have to pay penalty under Section 4(A) (3) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants being mother and brother of the deceased workman Sree Rama Chinna Obulesu, have filed a claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of one Sree Rama Chinna Obulesu, who was a painter working under the employment of Opposite Party-I, who was a contractor for white-washing activity to the Opposite Party-IV for the building of Assistant Social Welfare Office in Pragathi Bhavan Complex of Opposite Party-I. The Opposite Party-II is the head of Pragathi Bhavan and the Opposite Party-III was supervising the activities of Pragathi Bhavan. On 22.06.2004, the Opposite Party-I instructed the deceased painter to paint windows and while the deceased started work at sun side of the building and was painting the window, the deceased unexpectedly fell down from the building and sustained injuries and he skull was fractured. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital where he was declared dead during the course of treatment. The Civil Assistant Surgeon, who conducted post-mortem, opined that the deceased died due to Neurogenic shock. A case in Crime No. 119 of 2004 was registered by I Town Police Station, Kadapa. The deceased was aged 18 years at the time of death and was warning Rs.200/- per day as a skilled painter. Hence, the applicants claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. making all the Opposite Parties liable jointly and severally to pay compensation to the applicants, as the deceased died while he was painting the windows in the course of his employment. 3. Hence, the applicants claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. making all the Opposite Parties liable jointly and severally to pay compensation to the applicants, as the deceased died while he was painting the windows in the course of his employment. 3. While the Opposite Party-I remained ex-parte, the Opposite Parties II and III adopted the counter of Opposite Party-IV, wherein the Opposite Party-IV denied the averments in the petition and contended that the Opposite Party-I has entrusted the work of white washing to the building of Assistant Social Welfare Office and hence, the Opposite Party- IV was not aware of the fact of engaging the services of the deceased for painting the windows and thereby the Opposite Party-IV is no way concerned with the deceased and sought for dismissal of the claim application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues: (1) Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting into death? (2) What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident? (3) What were the wages paid to the deceased at the time of accidental death? (4) What is the quantum of compensation payable to the applicants? (5) Who are liable to pay compensation to the applicants? 5. The mother of the deceased was examined as AW-1 and AWs. 2 and 3 were examined on her behalf and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. On behalf of the opposite parties, RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 6. After analysing the evidence on record, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the deceased was engaged by Opposite Party-I for white washing activity to the building of Assistant Social Welfare Office in Pragathi Bhavan, Cuddapah under the contract employment of the Opposite Party-I and the deceased had executed the said painting work. The Commissioner also held that the deceased while was painting the windows fell down from terrace and sustained injuries and his skull was fractured and he died while undergoing treatment; and the accidental death arose out of and in the course of his employment under the Opposite Party-I under the supervision of Opposite Party-III and under the control of Opposite Party-II. Taking into consideration the age mentioned in post-mortem certificate and the inquest report, which are Exs.A.2 and A.3, the Commissioner determined the age of the deceased as 18 years at the time of death. Since the amount of wage at Rs.4,200/- as claimed by the applicants is disputed by the opposite parties, considering the minimum wages fixed in construction or maintenance of Roads and Buildings operations to the painter (Skilled Category) as per G.O.Ms. No. 69, dated 29.03.2001, the Commissioner computed the minimum wage of the deceased at Rs.3,895/- per month and by applying the factor, the Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.4,40,875/- (226.38 x 50/100 x 3895 = 4,40,875/-) with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realisation. Assailing the said award, the present appeal has been filed. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there is no privity of contract between the deceased and the Opposite Party-IV and there is no order of appointment to show that the deceased was working under the control of Opposite Party-IV. He submits that the Commissioner erred in taking into consideration the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as he did not take any precautions while working along with co-workers and the Commissioner ought to have fixed the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. He further submits that in fact the Opposite Party-III is solely responsible for all the costs and compensation as he is the person, who engaged the deceased for painting work. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, supports the award under challenge and contended that the same needs no interference. 10. He further submits that in fact the Opposite Party-III is solely responsible for all the costs and compensation as he is the person, who engaged the deceased for painting work. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, supports the award under challenge and contended that the same needs no interference. 10. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, including the impugned award, it appears that after a thorough analysis of the evidence both oral and documentary, the Commissioner came to a conclusion that on 22.06.2004, the deceased was engaged by Opposite Party-I for white washing activity to the building of Assistant Social Welfare Office in Pragathi Bhavan, Cuddapah under the contract employment of the Opposite Party-I and the deceased had executed the said painting work; that the deceased while was painting the windows fell down from terrace and sustained injuries and his skull was fractured and he died while undergoing treatment and such accidental death arose out of and in the course of his employment under the Opposite Party-I under the supervision of Opposite Party-III and under the control of Opposite Party-II. In view of the ratio laid down in Bala Mallamma vs. Registrar, Osmania University, Hyderabad and Another, 2001 (2) ALD 228 and Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India vs. Asha Chouhan, 2004 ACJ 1474 , the Commissioner was right in arriving at such conclusions in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the findings given by the Commissioner are just, reasonable and well founded and the same do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this court, and hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the award dated 21.04.2005 passed in W.C. No. 128 of 2004. As the entire compensation amount has already been deposited before the Commissioner, the claimants/respondents are entitled to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon. 12. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.