P.K. Lohra, J.

Appellant employer, has preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') to challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Bhilwara (for short 'the learned Commissioner') in Claim Case No. WCA/F- 24/2008. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Commissioner while adjudicating the claim of the respondents-claimants under Section 10 read with Section 22 of the Act awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,94,120/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application.

2. The facts apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that respondents-claimants laid a claim petition under Section 10 read with Section 22 of the Act against the appellant before the learned Commissioner, inter alia, on the ground that husband of the first respondent and father of respondent Nos.2 and 3 Shri Babulal was in employment of the appellant as labourer for levelling of gitti. On the fateful day of 2nd February 2008 during the course of and out of employment, Babulal suffered grave and serious injuries and eventually succumbed to injuries. The incident was reported by the Factory Manager to the respondents-claimants. In order to claim compensation, respondents averred in the claim petition that at the time of occurrence of the accident, deceased Babulal was 35 years old and earning Rs. 4000/- per mensem. It is further stated in the claim petition that despite demand being raised by the respondents, compensation was not paid to them by the appellant and, therefore, besides claim amount, they are also entitled for interest on the aforesaid amount @ 18% per annum.

3. The claim petition is contested by the appellant and on its behalf, reply was submitted. In return, appellant admitted the factum of employment but clarified his nature of employment inasmuch as according to the appellant, deceased was entrusted duties of loading of prepared gitti in dumper and tractor trolley as well as levelling of gitti. A specific plea is raised that deceased was not entrusted any duty concerning crusher machine and DG set and, therefore, accident has occurred due to his own negligence and unauthorised act for which appellant cannot be held responsible. With this plea, a prayer is made for rejection of the claim petition.

4. In the additional plea, appellant pleaded that incident was immediately reported to Police Station, Sadar Bhilwara on 02.08.2008 and on account of pressure built by the family members of the deceased, appellant paid them a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. Further, elaborating additional pleas, it is averred that family members of the deceased lifted his body from the spot only after receiving the requisite amount and, therefore, they are not entitled for any claim from the appellant.

5. The learned Commissioner on the basis of pleadings of rival parties settled four issues for determination. For substantiating the claim, first respondent herself tendered her affidavit in evidence besides the affidavit of one more witness Shri Bherulal. That apart, four documents were produced which were exhibited including FIR, inquest report of dead body and autopsy report of deceased. In its defence, appellant produced two witnesses namely DW-1 Suresh Pangadiya and DW-2 Shiv Singh. The requisite payment of wages register was also produced by the appellant.

6. After conclusion of evidence of rival parties, learned Commissioner heard final arguments and by the impugned judgment and order decided issue No.1 regarding occurrence of accident resulting in death of Babulal during the course of and out of employment and recorded a definite finding that at the time of accident, deceased was in employment of appellant and he suffered injuries during the course of and out of employment which resulted in his death. The second issue relating to age and monthly wages of deceased Babulal was also decided in favour of respondents-claim