JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by National Insurance Company Ltd. aggrieved by the award dated 24.12.2014 passed in W.C.No.07 of 2013 on the file of Commissioner under Employees’ (Workmen’s) Compensation Act, 1923 and Assistant Commissioner of labour, Circle-II, Visakhapatnam. 2. The brief facts of the case are that parents of the deceased filed W.C.No.7 of 2013 claiming compensation of Rs.8,11,122/- on account of death of their son in an accident. The deceased was working as driver in GVMC, Visakhapatnam. On 22.07.2013, the deceased while on duty after dropping duty Doctor in jeep bearing No.AP 31 BR 6911 proceeded from Sheela Nagar towards Convent junction, when he reached near INS Dega Port connectivity road, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam, the vehicle accidently dashed the divider. As a result, deceased received grievous injuries all over his body. He succumbed to injuries on 25.07.2013 while undergoing treatment. The vehicle belongs to opposite party –I and it is insured with opposite party-II. As the death took place during employment and out of employment, both the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation. Hence, filed petition claiming compensation. 3. Opposite party-I filed counter wherein it was admitted that the deceased died in accident which occurred after dropping the Medical officer. However, it is submitted that the deceased drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which accident occurred. It is stated that the vehicle was insured with the opposite party-II and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Thus, opposite party-II alone is liable to pay compensation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of claim petition against it. 4. Opposite party-II filed counter denying all the averments of the claim petition and put the applicants to strict proof of the same. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, Commissioner framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether there exists the employer and employee relationship between the opposite party-I and the deceased? 2. If such relation exists, whether the deceased died due to the accident occurred during the course and out of employment or not? 3. If so what amount of compensation, the applicants are entitled to receive and who has to pay? 6. On behalf of the applicants, applicant No.1 was examined as AW1 besides examining AWs 2 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. 3. If so what amount of compensation, the applicants are entitled to receive and who has to pay? 6. On behalf of the applicants, applicant No.1 was examined as AW1 besides examining AWs 2 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. Assistant Manager of National Insurance Company was examined as RW1 and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of opposite party-II. 7. Upon considering the evidence adduced on either side, Commissioner passed the award directing opposite parties I and II to jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs.7,18,971/- by way of demand draft within thirty days from the date of the award. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by opposite party-II. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that compensation is awarded without their being documentary evidence with regard to income and age of the deceased. He would further submit that applicants are not entitled for compensation in the absence of documentary evidence which establish employment of the deceased under opposite part No.1. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 supported the award passed by the Commissioner. 11. While admitting the appeal the following substantial questions of law are formulated: 1. Whether the deceased Rampalli Amarnath was a workmen U/s (1) (N) of the Workmen Compensation Act at the time of his death? 2. Whether the deceased had died as a result of accident arising out of and in the course of employment? 3. Whether the commissioner is right in ordering the compensation for the death of the deceased when there is no proof with regard to employer and employee relationship between the deceased and opposite party No.1? Substantial Questions 1 to 3 Since these questions of law are interrelated, they are answered together. 12. One of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that applicants failed to establish the employment of the deceased under opposite party No.1 and consequentially failed to establish that the death was during the course of employment and out of the employment. In fact, in the counter filed by opposite party-I, it was admitted that on 22.07.2013 the accident took place while returning after dropping medical officer. In fact, in the counter filed by opposite party-I, it was admitted that on 22.07.2013 the accident took place while returning after dropping medical officer. Further in the cross-examination of AW1, he deposed that deceased has been working as such since three and half years prior to the accident. Thus, a perusal of the pleadings and depositions of the other witnesses i.e. AWs2 to 4 would prove that the deceased was working as driver of the subject vehicle, which belongs to opposite party –I. In Ex.A1/FIR, the avocation of the deceased was shown as driver of jeep bearing No.AP 31 BR 6911 and in Ex.A3, it is mentioned that the deceased is driver of Jeep in GVMC. Thus, the documentary evidence also supports the case of the applicants. 13. Thus, in view of the above, it can be concluded that deceased is employee under opposite party-I and that he died out of the employment and during the course of employment. 14. Coming to the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant with regard to income of the deceased, though the applicants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.7,800/-, no documentary evidence was produced. Therefore, the learned Commissioner has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.6,982/- per month as per G.O.Ms.No.90 of LET & F (Lab-II) Dept, dated 20.08.2007. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that compensation was awarded without there being any proof of income and age cannot be accepted. 15. The subsistence of insurance policy and coverage of risk of the deceased are not in dispute. 16. Therefore, the statutory requirements to claim compensation under W.C. Act i.e. 1) employer-employee relationship; 2) that accident occurs during and out of course of employment and 3) policy should cover the risk of the workman in question are satisfied. Thus, learned Commissioner has rightly concluded that the death of the deceased took place during and out of employment. These substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 17. There are no grounds, which brook interference of this Court and the same is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the award dated 24.12.2014 passed in W.C.No.07 of 2013 on the file of Commissioner under Employees’ (Workmen’s) Compensation Act, 1923 and Assistant Commissioner of labour, Circle-II, Visakhapatnam. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.