SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH,J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the insurer against the award dated 19.08.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Lohiya Nagar, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) in W.C.A. Case No. 280 of 2009 arising out of the accidental death of Zafaryab @ Zafar while he was driving a truck bearing registration no. HR 38 M-3533 insured by the present appellant. The said claim has been allowed and the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation has awarded Rs. 3,68,340/- to the claimant-respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether in the absence of any evidence in regard to relationship of employer and employee between the owner of vehicle in question and the claimant, the claim petition was maintainable before Workmen's Compensation Commissioner? 2. Whether in view of Section 21 of W.C. Act the claim petition in Ghaziabad court was maintainable? 3. Whether without framing proper issues as provided Under Rule 28 of the rules framed in the W.C. Act and without giving specific finding on the point of employment and cause of death, the impugned award is sustainable in law? 4. Whether interest on compensation amount could be awarded against appellant-insurance company?"
(2.) The first question of law does not arise in the present case inasmuch as the Commissioner has, on the second page of his order, clearly recorded the fact that in the written statement filed by the truck owner/employer, it had been stated, the deceased Zafar was engaged to drive the insured truck against payment of wages @ 4,000/- per month. In view of such specific statement made in the written statement of the owner it cannot be said, there was any evidence required to be led by the claimants to establish existence of master-servant relationship between the deceased Zafar and the owner of the truck (M/s Transline Logistic Pvt. Ltd). The appellant-insurer though denied that relationship, but it did not plead fraud or collusion (between the owner/employer and the claimants). Thus, question no. 1 does not arise in the instant case.
(3.) In respect of question no. 2, learned counsel for the appellant submits, in the written statement by means of paragraph 23 specific objection had been raised by the appellant-insurer as to jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Ghaziabad but he neither framed any issue in that regard nor decided the same.;