V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant, against the award, dated 09.08.2010, made in W.C. No. 261 of 2008, on the file of Workmen Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai. The appellant Insurance Company is the second respondent, whereas the respondents 1 to 7 are petitioners/claimants and the eighth respondent is the first respondent in W.C. No. 261 of 2008, on the file of Workmen Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai.

2. The respondents 1 to 7 filed W.C. No. 261 of 2008, claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as compensation, for the death of the husband of the first respondent and father of the respondents 2 to 5 and son of the respondents 6 and 7.

3. According to the respondents 1 to 7, the deceased K. Moorthy was employed as Mason from 01.05.2008 with the eighth respondent, for construction of Mirinda Godown. On 17.06.2008, at 5.30 p.m., when the deceased and one Muthusamy, Co-worker, went to take bath in the Tank, situated within the premises of the eighth respondent, the deceased got an electric shock, when he touched the electric switch to switch on the motor. He died, while he was taken to Hospital. The deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month and the respondents 1 to 7 are the legal heirs of the deceased and dependants on the earnings of the deceased. He died during and in the course of employment with the eighth respondent. The appellant is the insurer of the eighth respondent. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 7 filed W.C. No. 261 of 2008, claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as compensation from the appellant and the eighth respondent, as both of them are jointly liable to pay compensation.

4. The eighth respondent in the counter, admitted that the deceased was employed by them as Mason and he was paid Rs. 120/- per day. The eighth respondent further stated that the working hours was only upto 5 p.m. and the deceased died after the working hours and hence, they denied their liability to pay compensation.

5. The appellant denied that the deceased was working with the eighth respondent and he died during and in the course of employment. The deceased was not employed by the eighth respondent. He was engaged only by one Balu @ Murugamani. The said Balu @ Murugamani was not impleaded as necessary party. The respondents 1 to 7 can claim compensation only against the said Balu @ Murugamani, and prayed for dismissal of W.C.

6. Before the Commissioner for Workmen and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, on behalf of the claimants, the first respondent was examined as P.W. 1 and one Muthusamy, Co-worker of the deceased was examined as P.W. 2 and marked seven documents as Exs. P1 to P7. On behalf of the eighth respondent and the appellant, one R. Madasamy, Investigating Officer, National Insurance Co. Ltd. was examined as R.W. 1 and M. Arumugam, Assistant Manager of National Insurance Co. Ltd. was examined as R.W. 2 and marked three documents as Exs. R1 to R3.

7. The learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, framed necessary points for consideration. The learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, considering the pleadings and evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased died during and in the course of his employment. The policy issued by the appellant to the eighth respondent was in force on the date of accident and therefore, the appellant was held liable to pay compensation. Based on these findings, the Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,14,400/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 7 and directed the appellant to pay the said amount with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident, till the date of deposit.

8. Against the said order, dated 09.08.2010, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

9. At the time of admission, no substantial question of law has been framed. The learned counsel for the appellant rais