RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT No.1, Gian Singh filed a petition under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, for the grant of compensation on account of the accidental injuries suffered by him during the course of his employment, against the respondent No.2, being his employer and against the appellant, being insurer of respondent No.2.
(2.) RESPONDENT No.2 filed its reply and admitted the claim of respondent No.1 but asserted that he took an insurance policy and thus only the insurance company i.e. the appellant is liable for the payment of compensation. The appellant also filed its reply and inter -alia pleaded that (i) the claimant does not fall within the definition of the workman and was not working with respondent No.2 at the time of the alleged accident, (ii) the claim petition, as filed by respondent No.1 is a result of fraud and collusion between respondents No.1 & 2, (iii) there is a fundamental breach of the conditions of the policy of insurance and thus, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Mohali, vide its order dated 22.2.2010,accepted the claim petition of respondent No.1 and directed the appellant and respondent No.2 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,51,142/ - to respondent No.1 within a period of 60 days from the date of the order. In the event of non -payment of the above within the stipulated period, interest @ 9% per annum was made payable from the date of the accident, till the date of the actual payment.
(3.) THE appellant has challenged the impugned award of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner by submitting that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal: "A) Whether the finding of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner to the effect that there exists a relationship of employee and employer between the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is sustainable in the eyes of law, in the absence of any evidence to this effect? B) Whether the Commissioner has fallen in error in determining the monthly wages of the deceased as Rs.4,000/ - per month, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever on record? C) Whether the appellant (insurer) can be held liable for the payment of compensation to the respondent No.1, when there is a breach of the conditions of the insurance policy? D) Whether the Workmen Compensation Commissioner misread the evidence on record while assessing the compensation in favour of the respondent No.1 and against the appellant? E) Whether the Workmen Compensation Commissioner fell in error while allowing the compensation by taking into account 30% disability and not ascertaining or taking into account the loss of the earning capacity - ;