1. In present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, the applicants-appellants have brought under challenge the award dated 31.3.1992 passed by the Commissioner for Workman's Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner ) in Workman's Compensation Case No. 146 of 1989 whereby the learned Commissioner has rejected the claims-case filed by the heirs/legal representatives of the deceased workman. Aggrieved by the said rejection of the application, the appellants are before this Court.

1.1 The appellants are heirs/legal representatives of the deceased Mr. Mohmmed Abdul Gani and they are also, as per the claim in the application dependent within the meaning of the term as contained under Section 2(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

2. The applicants had filed Workman's Compensation Case No. 146 of 1989 stating, inter alia, that the deceased, the husband of the applicant No. 2, was working in the shop of the opponent No. 1 since last three years as a Sales-cum-Weighman. He was on duty on 22.12.1988. While on duty he complained about chest pain, hence he was taken to the hospital where he was given primary treatment and thereafter he was shifted to the hospital of Dr. Mehta however he succumbed to the pain, and died. Since the compensation was not paid within the time prescribed by the Act, the applicants preferred the compensation case on the ground that the death had occurred due to and in the course of employment and that therefore the opponent No. 1 was liable to pay the compensation as per the provisions under the Act. The opponent No. 2 happened to be the insurer, hence the applicants claimed that the opponent Nos. 1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, interest and penalty under the Act. On such premise the applicants impleaded the opponent Nos. 1 and 2 in the aforesaid proceeding. The appellants claimed that at the time of his death the deceased was 40 years old and was earning Rs. 1200/- per month and the death was on account of accident arisen out of and in the course of employment within the meaning of the phrase under Section 3 of the Act. The appellants claimed Rs. 75,000/- towards compensation. They also claimed penalty and interest in accordance with the provision of the Act.

2.1 The application was resisted by the opponents. The opponents filed their reply at exhibit 9 and exhibit 11. The opponent No. 1 admitted that the deceased Mr. Mohmmed Abdul Gani was serving in his shop and on 22.12.1988 he was on duty. The appellant No. 1 also admitted that at the material point of time the deceased was performing his duty. The opponent No. 1 also conceded the fact that while performing his duty the deceased had complained about chest pain hence he was taken to the hospital where he died despite the treatment. The opponent No. 1, however, denied that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,200/- per month and claimed that the deceased was being paid Rs. 800/- per month. The opponent No. 1 also claimed that since the employees employed in his shop were insured with opponent No. 2, he was not liable to pay compensation. The opponent No. 1 claimed that the notice by the appellants was duly replied and since the appellants failed to supply necessary documents and details, there was no liability to pay the penalty and/or interest. The opponent No. 2 in its reply denied all assertions and allegations of the applicants and claimed that the application deserved to be dismissed.

2.2 During the proceeding the applicant No. 1 was examined at exhibit 12. Dr. Mehta was also examined and his evidence was recorded at exhibit 25. The evidence of opponent No. 1 was recorded at exhibit 33. The contesting parties also produced various documents on record. The learned Commissioner framed below mentioned four issues.

1. Whether applicants prove that deceased Abdul Mohammed Abdul Gani was workman of the opponent No.1?

2. Whether applicants pro