JUDGMENT : VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the impugned order dated 18.11.2010 in W.C. No. 7 of 2010 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Act and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nellore (hereinafter be referred to as “Commissioner”). 2. This appeal is an aftermath to a claim before the learned Commissioner by one K.Appala Swamy (Respondent No. 2) under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking compensation for the injuries sustained during the course of employment under the owner/Opposite Party. 3. The case of the applicant in brief is that, he met with an accident while he was on duty and travelling in Coromandel Express No. 2841/2842 selling consumer commodities of the establishment-K.M.A. Caterers. When the train reached Bitragunta railway station, the train stopped and in order to sell the commodities, he moved between the compartments and fell down from the train and lost his two hands. Thereafter, he approached the Opposite Party for compensation but failed to receive any, he then approached the Human Rights Commission, where he was directed to file a claim petition before the Commissioner under the Act. 4. The learned Commissioner framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident victim person K. Appala Swamy is employer under the Opposite Party? 2. What is the compensation the employer has to pay? 5. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the applicant, K. Appala Swamy was examined as AW-1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were the documents marked. No evidence adduced on behalf of the Opposite party. Having heard the arguments of both sides and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner awarded the compensation of Rs.5,20,584/- in favour of the injured as against the Opposite Party with a direction to deposit the amount within 30 days. 6. The Opposite Party, having been aggrieved by the order impugned, preferred the present appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the 1st respondent was justified in awarding compensation to the claimant despite the fact that the claimant was found to be working on casual basis as admitted by him in the cross examination contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court while dealing with Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923? (2) Whether the 1st respondent is justified in placing burden on the employer to prove the quantum of wages drawn by the claimant though no evidence has been adduced by the claimant in support of the alleged quantum of salary drawn by him? (3) Whether the 1st respondent is justified in awarding the compensation overlooking the aspect that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the claimant and the employer cannot be mulcted with liability in such a situation? 7. Heard learned counsel on both the sides. Perused the material available on record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Ltd. Vs. Ramu Pasi, (2006) 1 SCC 377 casual labour is not covered by the expression ‘workman’ as defined in Section 2(1)(n) of the Act., hence the claim petition before the learned Commissioner is not maintainable. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent would submit that the order impugned is sustainable under law and that there are no grounds warranting interference of this court in appeal. Determination by the Court Point No. 1 9. There is no dispute about the fact that, there is categorical finding recorded by the learned Commissioner that the injured is a casual worker. In order to appreciate the submissions, it is apt to analyze the transition involved in Section 2(1)(n) of the Act: Prior to the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 2000 (Act No. 46 of 2000) “Section 2 (1) (n) “workman” means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer’s trade or business) who is.........” The Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 2000 (Act No. 46 of 2000) Section 2-Amendment of Section 2: In the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in section 2, in subsection (1), in clause (n), the following brackets and words shall be omitted, namely: “(other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business).” Post the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 2000 (Act No. 46 of 2000) “Section 2 (1) (n) “workman” means any person (***) who is........” 10. A glance at the provision supra shows that, the expression workman as defined in the Act, which did not cover a casual worker, has been deleted by amendment of Section 2 of the Act 46 of 2000. So far as the definition of workman envisaged under Section 2(1)(n) of the Act is concerned, there has been a drastic change in the definition of the workman as it stood prior to the amendment and after the amendment. Prior to the amendment, certainly the workman whose employment was of a casual nature and he was employed otherwise than for the purpose of trade or business of the employer would not fall in the said definition. By virtue of the Act No. 46 of 2000, certainly workman whose employment is of casual nature and he is employed otherwise than for the purpose of employer’s trade or business would also be covered within the definition of workman. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant in order to buttress their contention placed reliance on Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Ltd. Vs. Ramu Pasi, wherein it was observed that in Para-4 that ‘a bare reading of the said Act shows that the expression “workman” as defined in the Act does not cover a casual worker.’ The judgment referred to supra relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the present case, as the accident occurred in the referred case on 11.06.1986 i.e., period before the introduction of the Act No. 46 of 2000. Moreover, Liability of employer accrues on date of accident though matter is decided on subsequent date. 12. In Govind Goenka v. Dayawati and others, 2012 SCC Online Del 1723 a Coordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court analysed the effect of Amending Act 46 of 2000 on the definition of workman and held as under: “8. So far as the definition of workman envisaged in Section 2(n) of the said Act is concerned, there has been a drastic change in the definition of the “Workman” as it stood prior to the amendment and after the amendment. Prior to the amendment, certainly the workman whose employment was of a casual nature and who was employed otherwise than for the purpose of trade or Business of the employer would not fall in the said definition. Prior to the amendment, certainly the workman whose employment was of a casual nature and who was employed otherwise than for the purpose of trade or Business of the employer would not fall in the said definition. However, after the amendment of the said definition through the Amending Act 46 of 2000, the Parliament had removed the said mischief which was then prevailing and coming in the way of such casual Workmen who met with an accident during the course of the employment unconnected with the employer’s trade or Business. With the amendment of the said definition, now certainly the workman whose employment is of casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of employer’s trade or Business would also be covered within the definition of workman.” 13. In Om Parkash Batish vs. Ranjit @ Ranbir Kaur and Others, 2008 (5) SCC 443 the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering an appeal pertaining to an accident that occurred in 1996, observed in the following lines: “We must, however, place on record that the words beginning from “other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer's trade or business” have been omitted by Act 46 of 2000. We are, however, considering the statutory provision as it then stood.” 14. In the present case, the accident occurred on 05.12.2008 as discussed supra. In the light of the amendment which was brought into force by Section 46 of 2000 Act, a person whose employment is of casual nature also falls under the definition “workman”. As such, the injured being a casual labour is a workman under Section 2(1)(n) of the Act and his claim before the learned Commissioner is well maintainable. Point No. 2 15. Section 3 of the Act provides that if a personal injury is caused to workmen by accident arising out of and in course of his employment, the employer shall liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions. Vide catena of decisions, ingredients essential to succeed in a claim may be summed up as follows: (a) Existence of employee-employer relationship. (b) Accident to arise out of and in the course of employment. (c) Causal connection between the work, accident, and the injury. (d) Policy issued by the insurer covers the risks of the workman in question. 16. Vide catena of decisions, ingredients essential to succeed in a claim may be summed up as follows: (a) Existence of employee-employer relationship. (b) Accident to arise out of and in the course of employment. (c) Causal connection between the work, accident, and the injury. (d) Policy issued by the insurer covers the risks of the workman in question. 16. In the present case, injured as AW-1 deposed that he worked with the Opposite Party under the license of IRCTC, Kolkata from 11.02.2007 up to the date of the incident i.e., on 05.12.2008. and while he was on duty at Bitragunta railway station, he met with an accident, that there are 29 members working along with him, that worker pass is under the custody of his owner, that the owner i.e., the Opposite Party got him admitted at the Government Hospital, Nellore, and paid Rs.5000/- towards medical expenses. AW-1 took treatment as inpatient for 5 days and for better treatment, he was shifted to Arif Hospital, Visakhapatnam. AW-1 lost one hand in the accident, later his hand was amputated in Arif Hospital, Visakhapatnam. He spent Rs.2 lakhs towards medical expenses. 17. The Opposite Party along with one Vikram visited the hospital when he was taking treatment and gave Rs.10,000/- to him. He received Rs.15,000/- from the owner and thereafter, the owner did not turn up and as such he approached the Human Rights Commission. As directed by it, he filed the present claim petition before the learned Commissioner. In support of his case, he filed the documents Exs.A1 to A7. 18. In cross examination, applicant admitted that, he worked as casual worker i.e. as a contract worker in the establishment of Opposite Party. He boarded Coromandel Express on 04.12.2008, and the train stops as per the signals. Ex.A1 does not contain the signature of railway officer. As directed by the Human Rights Commission, he is receiving a pension of Rs.5,000/- per month from Collector’s Office, Visakhapatnam. His duty is to take snacks from the pantry car and sell to the customers in the compartments. He has not filed any document in proof of his wages as Rs.5000/- per month. A suggestion was put to AW-1 that his wages are not Rs.5000/- per month, except that, no effort has been made by the Opposite Party to show the wages of the injured. 19. He has not filed any document in proof of his wages as Rs.5000/- per month. A suggestion was put to AW-1 that his wages are not Rs.5000/- per month, except that, no effort has been made by the Opposite Party to show the wages of the injured. 19. In support of his case, applicant examined one J. Dass who was his colleague as AW-2. AW-2 categorically stated that, he worked along with the injured. On 05.01.2008 evening, the Coromandel Express train stopped at Bitragunta once and moved. Again when it stopped, he saw the injured, at that time, he was in blood and a blanket was on the injured. Thereafter the train moved, he boarded in the train. His owner never maintained any records or issued any passes to them. 20. In cross examination, AW-2 admitted that, they take commodities from pantry car and sell them to the passengers. The Coromandel Express starts at Vijayawada and stops only at Chennai without having any halt. He did not observe the injured getting down, from the train, when it stopped at Bitragunta. The injured/applicant also examined AW-3 Ramlal Ram, who worked along with him. AW-3 also supported the version of the injured. 21. The Opposite Party-Shabbir was examined as OPW-1. He deposed that, the applicant is only a casual employee, he was not connected with the business and trade. The duty of the injured is to sell snacks within the compartments but he should not move out of the compartment. On the date of incident, due to non-availability of signal, the train started. When the train started, the injured fell down under the wheels of the train when he was climbing the steps and as such he invited the injury. The accident was not occurred under the purview of Section 3 of Employees Compensation Act. Exs.B1 and B2 are the documents marked through OPW-1. 22. It was elicited in the cross examination of OPW-1 that as per travel pass issued to 29 members, their travel in the train is authorized. He has not filed attendance register of 29 people in the Court. 10% will be given as sales commission on the commodities sold. He admitted that, he is the person responsible to pay compensation as he recruits the person on his own. Ex.B1 does not relate to 2841/2842 Coromandel Express. He has not filed attendance register of 29 people in the Court. 10% will be given as sales commission on the commodities sold. He admitted that, he is the person responsible to pay compensation as he recruits the person on his own. Ex.B1 does not relate to 2841/2842 Coromandel Express. OPW-1 further stated that, he employed the applicant person as casual employee but he is not regular employee. 23. It is the case of the injured that, he is aged about 25 years and he was getting Rs.5,000/- per month as wages. The substantial question raised in this appeal as to placing burden on the employer to prove the claim of wages drawn by the claimant. No document has been filed by the injured to show that his wage is Rs.5000/- per month. Though the Opposite Party was examined as witness, there is no whisper as to the wage of the injured. 24. Needless to say that, onus is on the injured to prove his wage in absence of any proof of income, Learned Commissioner is to follow the wage as fixed by the Government under Minimum Wages Act. No scrap of paper is filed by the Opposite Party on the point of wages. When it is the case of the injured that he used to receive Rs.5000/- per month as wage, the evidential burden shifts to the owner to disprove the case of the injured. As the wage limit permitted under the Act is Rs.4000/- per month, the learned Commissioner has taken Rs.4000/- per month as wages and calculated the possibility and granted compensation. Though the evidential burden shifts to the Opposite Party, he failed to establish the wage of the claimant. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the order impugned on this point. Point No. 3 25. It is the case of the victim that, the accident arose in the course of employment, due to which he sustained injuries and he is entitled for compensation. It is an undisputed fact that, the injured lost his two hands while attending the work entrusted by the owner. It is not uncommon to observe that, though the trains do not have any stop, they could stop sometimes for want of signal clearance. The duty of the injured is to collect the articles from pantry car and sell them to the passengers. It is not uncommon to observe that, though the trains do not have any stop, they could stop sometimes for want of signal clearance. The duty of the injured is to collect the articles from pantry car and sell them to the passengers. Moving from one compartment to another is an integral part of the duty of the injured. Mere fact that the Coromandel Express has no stops in between Vijayawada to Chennai., and the accident occurred when the train stopped at Bitragunta therefore it is the voluntary act of the injured and beyond the scope of the employment, cannot be countenanced. The reason being in day-in and day-out, the workers like the injured in the present case moves from one compartment to another from outside the compartment when there is no internal way to reach the other compartments. When the train stopped at railway station for want of signal, the injured fell down under the wheels of the train, while attending his work which is in the course of employment. It should not preclude him from receiving compensation. 26. In the present case, the injured succeeded in proving that the accident arose out of in the course of employment. So, it cannot be said that, the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of the injured, for which the employer cannot be frazzled with liability. As there is casual connection between the accident to the duties of the applicant, there is nothing to interfere in the order impugned on this point as well. 27. In result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, both parties shall bear their own costs. 28. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, shall stands closed.