JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Shahid Khan, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Kumar Nischay, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. 2. Notices upon respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been validly served and the matter was adjourned with a view to provide one more opportunity to them on 16.02.2023, however till date respondent nos. 2 and 3 have not appeared and in that view of the matter, in their absence this appeal has been heard. 3. Being dissatisfied with the judgment/award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Hazaribagh dated 06.07.2009 in W.C. Case No. 58/2007, the present appeal has been filed by the insurance company. 4. The said W.C. Case was filed by the claimants considering that the deceased namely Karu Mahto @ Kamdeo Mahato died on 08.12.2005 while discharging his duty with respondent no. 4. The learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Hazaribag has awarded sum of Rs. 2,81,320/- in favour of the claimants and further directed if the award is not satisfied within 60 days, simple interest @ 7% will be payable. 5. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was not covered under the insurance policy and the learned Commissioner has wrongly passed the order. He further submits that the deceased was not coming within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. On this ground, he submits that this appeal may kindly be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Shahid Khan, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the insurance policy was filed and in the insurance policy, the insurance was taken for 8 persons not named in the said policy and the deceased was coming within those 8 persons and in that view of the matter, the learned Commissioner has rightly passed the award. 7. In view of the above facts and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the judgment/award passed by the learned Commissioner and finds that the learned Commissioner has considered terms and conditions of the policy, which was brought on record and found that the policy was taken for 8 unknown persons and the deceased was coming within those 8 persons. The employer has also admitted that the deceased has come within those unknown 8 persons. The employer has also admitted that the deceased has come within those unknown 8 persons. Nothing has been proved whether the policy was taken for the deceased or not and the onus lies on the person, who take such plea to prove the case, which is lacking in the case in hand. In that view of the matter, the argument of Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel for the appellants is not accepted. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 9. The amount deposited by the insurance company, if not disbursed in favour of the claimants, will be disbursed in their favour forthwith. 10. Let the L.C.R. be sent back to the concerned learned court forthwith.