The appellant insurance company could not challenge the award on grounds other than those made out under Section 149 (2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as it failed to contest the claims on all grounds before the WCC.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against two independent orders dated 8. 7. 1997 passed by the workmen's compensation commissioner, shimoga, henceforth in brief referred to as the wcc. When the first appeal herein is directed against the order in case No. Wca:fc: cr:15 of 1993 the second appeal is directed against the order in case No. Wca: fc:cr:14 of 1993. Both the appeals have been filed by the insurance company.

( 2 ) THE appellant insurance company in both the appeals is represented by the learned counsel Mr. B. c. Seetharama rao, whereas the contesting respondents- claimants are represented by the learned counsel Mr. S. V. Prakash.

( 3 ) THE facts as i see are similarly placed. That one ansaar and nazeer, both fullblood brothers, died at about 9. 30 p. m. On 21. 12. 1992 in a road accident near petrol bunk situated at c. n. Road, bhadravathi when they were changing the wheel of the tractor and that they were claimed to be the workers under their father, one rasool sab, son of buden sab. It was the case of the respondents-claimants that both the deceased persons were engaged as workers/ coolies in the agricultural land of their father and that on the relevant day, they were in-the process of transporting sugarcane grown in the lands and thus, they fell within the meaning of the term 'workmen' under the Workmen's Compensation Act. That the respondents-claimants, therefore, filed claim petitions before the wcc, making the father and the appellant, insurance company herein as the opponents. That on behalf of the respondents-claimants, three witnesses were examined. It appears that the father of the deceased supported and conceded the claims of the respondents- claimants. Therefore, it was the lot of the appellant insurance company to oppose the claims made by the respondents- claimants.

( 4 ) THAT the wcc on appreciation of the material evidence on record had awarded Rs. 83,192 together with interest in case No. 15 of 1993 and Rs. 75,265 together with interest in case No. 14 of 1993 to the respective claimants.

( 5 ) HAVING been aggrieved thereto, the appellant, insurance company had resorted to these two appeals before this court.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant insurance company Mr. B. c. Seetharama rao had taken me through the impugned orders under challenge.

( 7 ) IT was his argument that the learned wcc did not appreciate that the deceased persons were not the workers employed by their father and that they were part of the establishment of the father himself and that he did not see the collusive claims made by the claimants on the one side and the father (the respondent No. 1 before the wcc) on the other. It was also argued by Mr. Rao with vehemence that the bene ficial legislation in the workmen's compensation act had been misused to the core to resort to false claims by the respondents- claimants before the wcc. According to him, on that short ground alone, the wcc would have rejected the claims of the respondents-claimants. He had also submitted that the wcc failed to appreciate that there was no relationship of workman as defined under the workmen's compensation act.

( 8 ) WHILE referring to para (9) of the impugned orders, it was also argued by Mr. Rao that the learned wcc had wrongly applied the provision in column 1 (i) (ix) in schedule ii of the act. It was also pointed out by him that the learned wcc had placed reliance on the said provision of law only to award the compensation arbitrarily. In this context he had also drawn my attention to the statement of the wife of the deceased nazeer before the police found in the records of the wcc, wherein she had clearly stated before the police that it is their tractor which had suffered the accident. Therefore, he prayed that the instant appeal be allowed by setting aside both the awards passed by the wcc.

( 9 ) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants Mr. Prakash on the other side, counter argued that there is no poin