JUDGMENT : T. AMARNATH GOUD, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the court below has eroded in passing the award in favour of the petitioner herein who was the respondent before the trial court. While granting the award to the respondents herein, the petitioner was not given any opportunity before the concerned officer in the trial court hence the said order has been passed ex-parte against him and the same is contrary to law. 3. Further the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the interlocutory application bearing No. 02 of 2021 arising from 51 of 2021 filed by the respondents herein before this court seeking vacation, modification the order dated 31.08.2021 passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2021 arising out C.R.P. No. 51 of 2021 is perverse. 4. It is apparent from the records that the deceased person was working with the petitioner herein as worker. In the process of working, an electric pole fell on him causing severe injuries on his person. Thereafter, the deceased person claimed a compensation of Rs. 6,31,944/- initially for the injury he suffered from that accident. During pendency of the suit, the health of the deceased Haripada Debnath kept deteriorating and subsequently died and his legal representatives i.e. the respondents were substituted in his place and they claimed further compensation of Rs. 5,08,320/- stating that the deceased employee died due to said accidental injuries. The Commissioner Employees’ Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala after thorough consideration of the matter, held that the respondents herein are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 9,36,200/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Thirty Six Thousands Two Hundred) only. 5. Opposite party No. 3 in the trial court though appeared and on some occasion prayed for adjournment to submit the written statement but ultimately did not file it and lastly as per order dated 19.01.2015 the case proceeded ex-parte against him. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that he, the opposite party No. 3 in the trial was not present all throughout the proceeding in the trial court. He has not got any right for seeking adjournment and filed a written objection. In view of the above, the finding of the lower court that no opportunity was not given to the petitioner herein and no notice was given to him, this is a negative statement made by the petitioner. 7. He has not got any right for seeking adjournment and filed a written objection. In view of the above, the finding of the lower court that no opportunity was not given to the petitioner herein and no notice was given to him, this is a negative statement made by the petitioner. 7. The petitioner herein appeared before the lower court needs no further notice and his absence the matter was adjudicated. Since he did not turn up despite several adjournment the said order has been passed. 8. Accordingly, the contention of the petitioner that no notice was given by the lower court and impugned order is passed without notice stands vacated. It is the contention of the petitioner that the application made by the respondent in I.A. No. 02 of 2021 arising out of C.R.P. No. 51 of 2021 under Section 151 of the CPC for vacating or modifying the order dated 31.08.2021 delivered in I.A. No. 01 of 2021 arising out from the instance CRP is not maintainable. 9. The petitioner further contends that the order awarding the respondent for getting compensation was not just and proper because the trial court has failed to verified the income and damage done to the respondent and arbitrarily passed the award in favour of the respondent herein. It is the specific contention of the opposite party No. 1 and 2 before the court below by way of written objection that the deceased was never in employment under them and they further moved on to state unequivocally that they did not know any person namely Haripada Debnath. Even they also further claimed that the Opposite party No. 3 was never their contractor and he was unknown to them. They also stated they were never aware of the incident met by Haripada Debnath (now deceased) and injuries suffered and treatment received by him as they were not connected with any such contract work. 10. This court finds that the trial court has observed the presence of the petitioner on number of occasion and he prayed for adjournment to submit the written statement but ultimately did not file it and lastly as per order dated 19.01.2015 the case proceeded ex-parte against him. The said fact has not got its mention in the instant CRP filed by the petitioner and there is no denial either. 11. The said fact has not got its mention in the instant CRP filed by the petitioner and there is no denial either. 11. It seems that the petitioner herein (opposite party No. 3) in the trial court has approached this court to put an end to this litigation stating that the deceased was not an employee but learned Commissioner had drawn a presumption that the deceased was the employee of the petitioner and in the absence of any evidence, thereto, the impugned order dated 11.02.2019 is liable to be quashed. 12. It has been observed by the court below that the petitioners therein were claiming that the deceased was employee under opposite party no. 3 who was working as contractor under opposite part nos. 1 and 2. Though, the PW-2 and PW-3 stated the deceased was directly an employee under opposite party nos. 1 and 2 and even PW-2 introduced him before the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 but his said evidence is directly contradicting with the pleading of the petitioners therein and appears to be after thought thus same cannot be accepted. Be that as it may, the opposite party no. 3 did not contest the case to deny the claim of the petitioners that the deceased was an employee under him at the time of incident. There is also no document to show that opposite part no. 3 was performing said work as contractor under opposite nos. 1 and 2. Thus, it is held that the deceased was working under opposite party no. 3 at the time of accident and as such if any compensation is awarded to the petitioners, opposite party no. 3 will be responsible to pay the same. 13. The respondents have claimed the daily wage of the deceased to be Rs. 200/- and same appears to be very reasonable during the year 2011 though no document is submitted by the petitioners in this regard. Thus the monthly income of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 6000/- Thus, compensation is assessed to be Rs. 3000 x 169.29 = Rs. 4,98,870/-. Further a sum of Rs. 5000/- is added as funeral expenses. The respondents submitted cash memos/vouchers of Rs. 4,32,341/- out of which Rs. 38,877/- was incurred for air tickets and Rs. 3,30,890/- was paid in AMRI hospital as interim bill but the petitioners did not produce final bill of said hospital. 3000 x 169.29 = Rs. 4,98,870/-. Further a sum of Rs. 5000/- is added as funeral expenses. The respondents submitted cash memos/vouchers of Rs. 4,32,341/- out of which Rs. 38,877/- was incurred for air tickets and Rs. 3,30,890/- was paid in AMRI hospital as interim bill but the petitioners did not produce final bill of said hospital. Thus, further Rs. 4,32,341/- is added with said compensation as medical expenditure. Thus, if any compensation is awarded to the petitioners, then they will be entitled to get Rs. 9,36,211/- rounded off to Rs. 9,36,200/- 14. It is evident from the disability certificate (Exbt-7) that the deceased was suffering from paraplegia due to spinal cord injury and due to the said disease he was suffering from paralysis of lower portion of body below waist and his disability was of permanent in nature to the extent of 95%. The said disability certificate was issued by the Member Secretary, District Disability Board, West Tripura. 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the in order to shift the burden of paying the compensation amount to the respondents, the petitioner has prepared a story. He has intentionally brought the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 into the litigation so as to evade his liability towards the deceased. This court finds that the award passed by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala dated 11.02.2019 is just and proper and needs no interference by this court. 16. The said award dated 11.02.2019 stands affirmed. 17. Accordingly, this CRP stands dismissed. 18. Interlocutory application, lying pending, if any, also stands closed.