JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant has challenged award dated 29.11.2010 passed by the Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (ALC), Jammu, whereby the respondents/claimants have been held entitled to compensation in the amount of Rs.3,05,775/- along with a sum of Rs.2,07,000/- as interest. 2. It appears that the respondents, who happen to be the widow and minor children of deceased Lalit Kumar Sharma, filed a claim petition before the ALC Jammu. In the claim petition, it was submitted that the deceased was working as a Chowkidar/Watchman with the employers, respondent Nos. 8 and 9 to the present appeal. It was alleged that on 04.03.2005, the deceased died during the course of his employment. It was further alleged that the deceased was getting monthly wages of Rs.3000/- per month and his age was 32 years at the time of his death. 3. Respondent No.9-Jai Bharat Corporation Chemical Private Limited in its reply before the ALC denied that the deceased was its employee. It was further submitted that the said respondent had awarded the tender for completion of civil work at his place to respondent No. 8-M/s Sujata Construction Company and that it has nothing to do with the M/s Sujata Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 4. Respondent No. 8 M/s Sujata Construction Company in its reply submitted that the deceased-workman was insured under W. C. Policy No. 41/05/03, CL No. 41/06/1 with appellant/insurance company. It was submitted that the Police after investigation has concluded that the deceased had died by consuming insecticide and that he has committed suicide. It has been further submitted that the deceased has not died during the course of his employment. 5. Initially appellant/insurance company was not made a party to the proceedings before the ALC, Jammu but later on, it was impleaded as party respondent to the proceedings. In its reply, the appellant/insurance company submitted that the deceased had died as a result of poisoning and that he has committed suicide. It has been submitted that the aforesaid conclusion has been drawn by the Investigating Agency after the investigation of the case. The appellant/insurance company contended that the deceased was not a workman covered under the policy and that the deceased did not die during the course of his employment. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner (ALC), Jammu framed the following issues : “1. Whether the deceased Sh. The appellant/insurance company contended that the deceased was not a workman covered under the policy and that the deceased did not die during the course of his employment. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner (ALC), Jammu framed the following issues : “1. Whether the deceased Sh. Lalit Kumar falls under the definition of a Workman as prescribed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (OPP) 2. Whether the deceased met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment for respondent No. 1 or 2 (OPP). 3. What was the age and wages of the deceased at the time of accident (OPP). 4. Whether the respondent No. 2 i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. are liable to indemnify the insured i.e. respondent No. 1 (OPR-1). 5. Relief.” 7. Respondents/claimants examined respondent No.1-Ranju Sharma, widow of deceased-Lalit Kumar, Jail Kala Devi and Kailash Kumar as witnesses in support of their case. No evidence was produced by the appellant/insurance company or by respondent Nos. 8 and 9 before the ALC Jammu. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased had taken place during the course of his employment and that he was earning Rs.3000/- per month as wages and his age was 32 years. On this basis, the impugned award came to be passed. 8. The appellant/insurance company has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the findings of the Commissioner are not in accordance with the law inasmuch as there was evidence on record before the Commissioner to show that the deceased had died as a result of poisoning and that he had committed suicide. It has been further contended that the award passed by the learned Commissioner does not conform to the requirements of Rule 32 of the Workmen Compensation Rules, 1924. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including the record of the ALC. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company has vehemently argued that there was ample evidence on record before the learned Commissioner to come to the conclusion that the deceased had died as a result of poisoning and that he had committed suicide. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company has vehemently argued that there was ample evidence on record before the learned Commissioner to come to the conclusion that the deceased had died as a result of poisoning and that he had committed suicide. According to the learned counsel, the Commissioner has ignored this evidence and material and returned a finding that the deceased had died during the course of his employment. Recording a finding contrary to the material available before the Commissioner, would give rise to a substantial question of law and therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be entertained and allowed. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Divisional Manager vs. Noor Din and Another, 2011 (3) JKJ 193 [HC] and Divisional Manager SFC vs. Qadir Baksh and others, (2005) 2 JKJ 107 . Reliance has also been placed on the judgments of the Chhattisgarh High Court in case of Bajarhin Bai Mahetaru Kevat vs. R.K. Solanki, (2019) ACJ 1762 and the Madras High Court in the case of The Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd vs. S. Chellathurai, (2002) ACJ 1429. 11. In order to test the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company, it would be apt to refer to the material that was available before the learned Commissioner. Respondents/claimants had placed on record before the learned Commissioner a copy of the certificate issued by the Government Medical College, Jammu, according to which, the deceased was admitted to the hospital with the history of fall with head injury. The respondents/claimants have also placed on record a copy of order dated 28.07.2007 passed by the learned JMIC (Munsiff), Samba whereby while deciding the protest petition filed by the widow of the deceased against the findings of enquiry conducted by Police Station, Bari Brahamana under section 174 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has expressed his clear dissatisfaction with the conclusion drawn by the Police as regards the cause of death of the deceased. In the said order, the learned Magistrate has noted that all the witnesses whose statements were recorded during the enquiry had stated that the deceased was taken to the hospital in an injured condition. In the said order, the learned Magistrate has noted that all the witnesses whose statements were recorded during the enquiry had stated that the deceased was taken to the hospital in an injured condition. The learned Magistrate has also relied upon the certificate issued by the Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu, according to which, the deceased was admitted to hospital with a head injury. It was also noted in the said order that during the enquiry, no material had come before the concerned inquiry officer to support the theory of suicide, but the inquiry officer latched on to the said theory once post-mortem report was received. On these grounds, the learned Magistrate directed further inquiry into the matter. 12. Besides the above documentary evidence, the claimants have led oral evidence in the shape of statements of claimant Ranju Sharma and her witnesses, Jai Kala Devi and Kailash Kumar. All these witnesses have in one voice stated that the deceased had died as a result of injuries which he sustained while he was performing his duty. These witnesses have been subjected to cross examination by the appellant/insurance company, but nothing could be elicited from their statements, to even remotely support the contention of the appellant/insurance company that the deceased had committed suicide. 13. As against this, appellant/insurance company or even the employers of the deceased have not led any evidence. They have not even placed on record any document in support of their contention that the deceased had died due to poisoning. Even the copy of post-mortem report of the deceased was not placed on record by the appellant. 14. In the face of aforesaid overwhelming material on record in support of the assertion of the claimants that the deceased had died as a result of injuries which he sustained while he was performing his duty, there was no option for the learned Commissioner but to conclude that the version of occurrence given by the claimants is correct. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the learned Commissioner has ignored any material while drawing his conclusion or that the said conclusion is based upon no evidence. 15. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company that the impugned award passed by the learned Commissioner is not in accordance with Rule 32 of the Workmen Compensation Rules, 1924 is also without any merit. 15. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company that the impugned award passed by the learned Commissioner is not in accordance with Rule 32 of the Workmen Compensation Rules, 1924 is also without any merit. As per Rule 32, the Commissioner is required to record a concise judgment and his finding on each of the issues framed and his reasons for such finding. 16. If we have a look at the impugned award, the learned Commissioner has framed the issues which have been reproduced hereinbefore and after framing of the issues, the learned Commissioner has discussed the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the deceased had died due to the accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment for respondents 8 and 9. The learned Commissioner has also concluded on the basis of evidence that the deceased was getting monthly wages of Rs.3000/- per month and his age was 32 years, accordingly, he has calculated the compensation and awarded the same in favour of the claimants. Since the appellant/insurance company had issued the policy of insurance as such, it has been saddled with liability to pay the awarded sum. 17. The learned Commissioner may not have drafted the judgment under different headings but nonetheless, in each of the issues framed in the case has been discussed by the learned Commissioner in separate paragraphs of his concise judgment. Therefore, the impugned judgment substantially complies with the requirements of Rule 32 of the Workmen Employees Rules. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company is, therefore, without any merit. 18. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. CCROS No. 5/2012 19. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that he does not want to pursue the afore-numbered cross appeal, as such, the same is dismissed as withdrawn.