JUDGMENT: This Appeal is filed against Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 by the Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., questioning the Order dated 06.02.2013 in W.C.No.10 of 2011 passed by the Learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tenali, Guntur District. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tenali. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under : One Mothurkuri Srinivasa Rao hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’ worked as Cleaner under O.P.No.1 on his Lorry bearing No.AP 16 Trade Unions Act 2888. On 28.09.2010 at about 4.00 p.m. the deceased in the course of employment as a Cleaner had shifted the JCB Proclainer on the Lorry at Venugumatla Village and while the Lorry was going towards Gollapalli in the outskirts of Venugumatla Village had found 11 K.V electrical wires passing on the road and the deceased in his attempt to clear the electrical wires through a wooden stick accidentally got electrical shock and died on the spot. A case was registered by S.H.O. Jagityal in Cr.No.124 of 2010 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. In the claim application filed by the parents and son of the deceased, it was stated that the deceased was 40 years of age and was getting a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- per month from O.P.No.1 and had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The O.P.No.1 remained ex parte and the O.P.No.2 i.e., Insurance Company filed their Counter denying the employer-employee relationship and that the deceased was a gracious passenger in the Lorry. Further defense was that the nature of death is due to electrical shock and the same is due to the negligence of the deceased and cannot be termed to be in the course of employment. 4. On behalf of the Claimants, the mother of the deceased and Driver were examined as A.Ws 1 & 2 respectively and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. The Insurance Company examined R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 i.e., Copy of Insurance Policy on its behalf. 5. The Commissioner after examining the oral and documentary evidence opined that the deceased was the employee of O.P.No.1 and the accident was occurred in the course of his employment under O.P.No.1. The Insurance Company examined R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 i.e., Copy of Insurance Policy on its behalf. 5. The Commissioner after examining the oral and documentary evidence opined that the deceased was the employee of O.P.No.1 and the accident was occurred in the course of his employment under O.P.No.1. Taking into consideration the minimum wages fixed for Cleaner vide G.O.Ms.No.83, dated 22.11.2006, the Commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs.3,70,461/-. Hence, the present Appeal. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant emphasized on the fact that there is no proof of the fact that the deceased was employed with O.P.No.1 and the nature of death cannot be termed to be as in the course of employment. 7. Primarily, the Policy is not in dispute and the fact that the petitioner was employed under O.P.No.1 is apparent from the fact that the deceased was travelling as a Cleaner and this fact was affirmed by A.W.2 i.e., the Driver of the Lorry. The immediate registration of crime before Gollapalli P.S., as Cr.No.124 of 2010 is an indicative of the fact that the deceased was travelling in the capacity as Cleaner. The reasoning adopted by the Commissioner is plausible and as opined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav & Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co., Ltd., & anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 746, what all the Appellate Court has to consider in an appeal under Section 30 of the Act is, whether the view taken by the Commissioner is plausible or not? 8. This Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the Commissioner cannot be termed to be perverse and in the totality of circumstances, the view adopted by the Commissioner appears to be plausible. As there is no dispute to the Insurance Policy, this Court does not find any substantial questions of Law for consideration in this Appeal. 9. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.