JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act assailing the order passed by the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, Hyderabad in WC.No.91 of 2009, dated 12.01.2016. 2. Appellant is the opposite party No.2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the applicant Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 is the opposite party No.1 in WC No.91 of 2009. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-applicants stated that Md.Wahiddullah Khatif @ Vahidulla worked as a driver on a lorry bearing No.MA 29M 6929 under the employment of respondent No.3-opposite party No.1. Md.Wahiddullah Khatif died in the course of employment on 09.03.2009 and that the opposite party No.2 is the Insurer of the said Lorry. The deceased was on duty as a driver on the above said date and he went to Amith Cotton Mill, Shadnagar, stopped the lorry and informed another driver i.e., Md.Feroz Khan that he is going to have his meals and when he reached a well for the purpose of fresh up, accidentally he slipped into the well and died. Deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and was aged about 45 years as on the date of accident and the prayed to grant Rs.6 Lakhs towards compensation along with costs. 4. Respondent No.3-opposite party No.1 filed counter and contended that the deceased was the driver and he died during the course of employment. 5. Appellant-opposite party No.2 filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has occurred. 6. When the matter came up for the evidence of the applicants (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein), they filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 in the month of February, 2011 praying to amend the Lorry bearing No.MA 29M 6929 to MH 29M 2969. On contest, the application came to be allowed and the respondent Nos.1 and 2-applicants have amended the W.C. 7. Respondent No.3-opposite party No.1 filed counter stating that MH 29M 2969 is insured with the appellant-opposite party No.2. 8. Appellant-opposite party No.2 has also filed additional counter denying the involvement of the vehicle bearing No. MH 29M 2969. 9. The learned Commissioner has framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the deceased was working as a driver on the lorry bearing No.MH 29M 2969 under the employment of the 1 st opposite party? 2. 8. Appellant-opposite party No.2 has also filed additional counter denying the involvement of the vehicle bearing No. MH 29M 2969. 9. The learned Commissioner has framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the deceased was working as a driver on the lorry bearing No.MH 29M 2969 under the employment of the 1 st opposite party? 2. Whether the death of the deceased on 09.03.2009 did arise out of and in the course of his employment? 3. If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the deceased? and; 4. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the dependants of the deceased? 10. Respondent No.1-applicant No.1 is examined as AW.1 and also examined AW.2-Md. Feroz Khan, driver on Lorry bearing No.MH 29M 2969 on 09.03.2009 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. Respondent No.3-opposite party No.1 is examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2. Appellant-opposite party No.2 has examined Abhijeet Dubey, Administrative Officer as RW.2 and got marked Ex.B2. 11. The learned Commissioner after analysing the evidence adduced by the parties has awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,34,746/- payable by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 (respondent No.3 and appellant herein) jointly and severally along with interest @ 12% per annum from 10.04.2009 till the date of realization. The amount to be deposited within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order which is impugned in the Appeal. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the substantial question of law arises in the Appeal are : I. Whether the commissioner is competent to entertain an application in case of death of the driver when it has no nexus to the incident and the employment. II. Whether the Commissioner has jurisdiction to entertain the claim when the death of late Mohd. Wahiddullah Khatif @ Vahidulla, did not occur due to an accident which had occurred during the course and out of the employment. III. The learned commissioner failed to see, whether the death of the deceased has occurred during and in the course of employment. IV. Whether the Commissioner was justified in ignoring the contents of the FIR, Inquest and PME Report, which clearly shown the cause of death was not an accident. III. The learned commissioner failed to see, whether the death of the deceased has occurred during and in the course of employment. IV. Whether the Commissioner was justified in ignoring the contents of the FIR, Inquest and PME Report, which clearly shown the cause of death was not an accident. V. Whether the Commissioner was justified in ignoring the fact that whether there was an accident and the accident has casual connection with the employment and the accident must have been suffered in the course of employment within the meaning of Sec.3(1) of the W.C.Act. 13. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-applicants submits that initially vehicle number was wrongly typed as MA 29M 6929 but the same was rectified by way of amendment to the application which was allowed and the correct vehicle number is mentioned as MH 29M 2969. No substantial question of law is made out in the Appeal. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Dewakar Shukla and others Vs. Ashok Thakur and others , 2006 ACJ 2517 , (2) Manju Sarkar and others Vs. Mabish Miah and others , 2014 ACJ 1927 (3) Poonam Devi and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2020 ACJ 1343 (4) Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav and another Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2023 ACJ 1986 and prayed to dismiss the Appeal. 14. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 15. Now the Points for consideration are : 1. Whether the appellant has made out any substantial question of law? If so? 2. Whether the order passed by the learned Commissioner in WC.No.91 of 2009, dated 12.01.2016 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so does it require interference of this Court? 16. It is apt to refer Section 30 of the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 which reads as under : “30. If so? 2. Whether the order passed by the learned Commissioner in WC.No.91 of 2009, dated 12.01.2016 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so does it require interference of this Court? 16. It is apt to refer Section 30 of the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 which reads as under : “30. Appeals:- (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely- (a) an order as awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; (aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4A; (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment; (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant; (d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of sub-sec.(2) of S.12; (e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions: Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred in Clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees: Provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties : Provided further that no appeal by an employer under Clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. (2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. (3) The provisions of Section 5 of [the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)] shall be applicable to appeals under this section. 17. (2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. (3) The provisions of Section 5 of [the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)] shall be applicable to appeals under this section. 17. Appellant-opposite party No.2 has not challenged the order passed in the amendment application replacing the vehicle number from MA 29M 6929 to MH 29M 2969. The said order has attained finality. Respondent No.3-opposite party No.1 has not cross- examined AW.1, AW.2 and also RW.2. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of inquest report, Ex.A3 is the post-mortem report which discloses the death of unknown male person, Ex.A4 is the certified copy of death certificate issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tahsil Office, Farooqnagar certifying the death of late Mohd. Vahidulla expired on 09.03.2009 at Kasireddyguda H/o Burgula Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Ex.A4 does not show the occupation of the deceased. 18. It is the sole contention of the appellant that the vehicle number mentioned is MA 29M 6929 and AW.1 has not informed the police after obtaining Exs.A8 to A10. Ex.A8-Particulars of Registration Certificate issued by Deputy Regional Transport Officer, Yavatmal, Ex.A9-Particulars of Registration Certificate issued by Deputy Regional Transport Officer in respect of vehicle bearing No.MH 29M 2969 and Ex.A10-Particulars of Registration Certificate issued by Deputy Regional Transport Officer, Yavatmal. 19. The Supreme Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs. M. Karumai Ammal , 1980 ACJ 435 (SC) , held as under : “Accidents Claims Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The Court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes” which is followed in Dewakar Shukla (supra). 20. In Manju Sarkar (supra), the Supreme Court held that “The doctrine of notional extension is applicable”. 21. In Poonam Devi (supra), the Supreme Court observed that “notional extension of employment is applicable to a workman who died in the course of employment.” 22. 20. In Manju Sarkar (supra), the Supreme Court held that “The doctrine of notional extension is applicable”. 21. In Poonam Devi (supra), the Supreme Court observed that “notional extension of employment is applicable to a workman who died in the course of employment.” 22. In Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav (supra) the Supreme Court observed that “The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 is a Social Welfare Legislation and therefore it must be given a beneficial construction and further held that the scope of an Appeal under the said Act being limited only to substantial question of law”. 23. Respondent No.3-opposite party No.1 has admitted in his evidence so also in the counter filed by him that the deceased Md.Wahiddullah Khatif who was a driver working under him and he is paying salary of Rs.5,000/- per month and vehicle bearing No.MH 29M 2969 is insured with the appellant-respondent No.2 under Ex.B2. As per AW.2 who is also the driver of MH 29M 2969 deposed that the deceased is also driver of the said vehicle and they have reached the Cotton Mill on 08.03.2009 in the morning. The deceased is the second driver, he went for taking meals and then he reached a well for the purpose of refreshment unfortunately he slipped and fell in the well and died. 24. Appellant counsel has filed true translation version of Telugu 161 statement of PW.2 and pointed out that in the statement AW.2 has mentioned the Lorry number as MA 29M 6929 but not MH 29M 2969. AW.2 stated that he has not given any requisition for alteration of the vehicle number to the police as in Ex.A7. AW.2 denied the suggestion that the vehicle number mentioned in Ex.A7 is the correct vehicle but not MH 29M 2969. 25. The learned Commissioner has observed that respondent Nos.1 and 2-applicants have proved that the deceased was working as a driver on Lorry bearing No.MH 29M 2969 under the employment of respondent No.3-opposite party No.1. The learned Commissioner has also further observed that appellant-opposite party No.2 has not placed any evidence to believe that the deceased was not working as a driver on Lorry bearing No.MH 29M 2969. 26. The learned Commissioner has elaborately discussed that the deceased died during the course of employment on 09.03.2009 which is supported with the evidence of AW.1, AW.2 and RW.1. 27. 26. The learned Commissioner has elaborately discussed that the deceased died during the course of employment on 09.03.2009 which is supported with the evidence of AW.1, AW.2 and RW.1. 27. In so far as the liability is concerned the learned Commissioner observed in Para No.32 of its order that “as per Ex.A6, Exs.B1 and B3 vehicle bearing No.MH 29M 2969 is insured with the appellant-opposite party No.2 and that the deceased had a valid license under Ex.A5 and held that respondent No.3-opposite party No.1 and appellant-opposite party No.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 28. In so far as the entitlement of compensation by the respondent Nos.1 and 2-applicants on the death of the deceased, the learned Commissioner has taken the Minimum Rates of Wages fixed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in employment of Public Motor Transport in G.O.Ms.No.83, L.E.T & F (Lab-II) Department dated 22.11.2006 with effect from 04.12.2006 and the basic wage for the category of heavy vehicle driver was Rs.4,319/- per month and the V.D.A payable as notified by the Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad was Rs.561.75 paise per month at the relevant time of accident and worked out the total wages to Rs.4,880.75 paise per month and restricted it to Rs.4,000/- as per Explanation-II of Section 4 of the Act for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation and the formula adopted is Rs.4,000 X 50/100 X 166.29 = Rs.3,32,580/- and added Advocate fee of Rs.1500/-, Court fee of Rs.666/- and arrived to a total compensation of Rs.3,34,746/- with interest @ 12% per annum. 29. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-applicants proved by way of the evidence of AW.1, AW.2 and RW.1 that the deceased died during the course of employment within the meaning of Section 3(1) of Workmen’s Compensation Act. 30. Appellants have not made out any substantial question of law, there are no merits in the Appeal, deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 31. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. Interim Orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.