The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's consideration of evidence and legal provisions in determining the deceased's monthly income, employer-employee relationship, and computation of compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act.

1. The appeal is filed by the insurance company under Section 23 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, against the award dated 14.09.2004 passed in W.C.No.568 of 2003 on the file of the Workmen Commissioner Court/Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Salem.

2. When the appeal came up on 15.12.2004, this Court has admitted the same, on the following substantial questions of law.

1. Whether the Learned Commissioner is right in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- in the absence of any evidence whatsoever and in such circumstances ought not the Learned Commissioner fixed the monthly income on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act?

2. Whether the Learned Commissioner is right in holding that there is an employer-employee relationship entirely relying on the pleadings of the 5th respondent herein especially when he has not adduced any oral evidence or produced any documents?

3. Whether the Learned Commissioner is right in holding that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month especially when no documents like Salary certificate etc., were filed prove the income?

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

One deceased Karthikeyan met with motor traffic accident on 30.06.2003 at about 06.00 hours. He was working as a cleaner in the Lorry bearing registration No.TN-69/Z-5083 belonging to the 5th respondent. While the said lorry was proceeding from Jir-Jera to Dhavekat main road in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, the driver of the lorry lost the control and hence the lorry was capsized. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. The claimants are mother, brother and sisters of the deceased. They filed a claim petition under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act before the Deputy commissioner for Labour and claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The said lorry was insured with the appellant insurance company, who resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the deceased employee was died in the course of employment or not?

2. What is the age and monthly salary of the deceased?

3. What is the compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom?

After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Deputy commissioner for Labour held that that accident had occurred only during the course of employment and awarded compensation of Rs.4,52,760/- and a further sum of Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses, totalling Rs.4,55,260/-, and the computation of the same are as under:

1. Age= 18

2. Relevant factor= 226.38

3. Monthly salary= Rs.4,000/-

4. computation of compensation

= 50/100x4000x226.38=Rs.4,52,760/-

Aggrieved by that order, the appellant insurance company has filed the present appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company submitted that the Deputy Commissioner for Labour has awarded excessive, exorbitant compensation and also without any basis and justification and vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- without any basis. Therefore, the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Labour is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Deputy Commissioner for Labour has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded just, fair and reasonable compensation. Therefore, the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Labour is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed.

6. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, P.W.1 is the claimant Jayakodi was examined and documents Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. Ex.P1 is the FIR, Ex.P2 is the registration certificate of the vehicle, Ex.P3 is the insurance policy, Ex.P4 is the postmortem certificate were marked. On the side of the appellant insurance company, no one was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their clai