A. S. Chandurkar, J. - (1.) This appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the said Act) raises the following substantial question of law : " Whether the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation was justified in holding that there was an employeremployee relationship between the respondents without giving due weightage to the award passed by the Labour Court on 29th January, 2003 wherein it was held that there was no employeremployee relationship between the parties and the said award had reached finality " Facts giving rise to present appeal are that the respondent No.1 claims to have been serving as a driver on a vehicle owned by the respondent No.2. According to the respondent No.1 on 30/12/1997 he was driving a tanker owned by the respondent No.2 for fetching diesel from Bhilai. The said vehicle met with an accident near Gondia resulting in the respondent No.1 sustaining various injuries. According to respondent No.1 on account of aforesaid accident, he became handicapped and suffered 40% permanent disability. The respondent No.1 claimed that he was entitled for compensation on account of injuries sustained during the course of his employment. The tanker in question was insured by respondent No.2 with the appellant Insurance Company. Hence respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 10 of the said Act claiming compensation of Rs.98,856/ from the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company.
(2.) The application was opposed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver. It was further denied that there was a relationship of employeremployee between the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.1. No reply was filed by the respondent No.2.
(3.) Before the learned Commissioner, the respondent No.1 examined himself below Exhibit44. He also examined a doctor at Exhibit94 to prove his disability. No other evidence was led. The learned Commissioner after considering the material on record came to the conclusion that the accident occurred out of and in the course of employment. The respondent No.1 was therefore granted compensation of Rs.98,870/. The claim was liable to be satisfied by the appellant. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.;