The central legal point established is the reliance on evidence to establish the employment relationship and the course of the deceased's death in justifying the award of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

ORDER :

Arun Mishra, J.—Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

One Ubed, since deceased was a cleaner of Tata Truck bearing no. UP-22C-9785 (in short 'the Truck') owned by respondent No.2- Naresh Chand Saxena (in short 'the owner') and insured by respondent No.1 -New India Assurance Co. Ltd.(in short 'the insurer').

2. On 28.08.2006 Truck was unloaded at Saw Mill, near Bamanpuri Gate, Rampur, at about 3.45 p.m. When Truck was reversed, Ubed- the deceased, who was helping the Truck driver in the process, came in touch of live electric wire and due to electrocution, he died on the spot. Consequently a Claim Petition was preferred before the Court of Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act (in short 'the Commissioner') at Delhi.

3. The owner of the vehicle in the written statement denied the factum of accident and also the factum of employment. On 21.01.2009 the insurer got the report of its surveyor, in which it was found that Ubed was in the employment as Cleaner and he died in the accident. The Commissioner relying upon the evidence adduced, report of surveyor, First Information Report (FIR) etc. held that Ubed was in the employment and he was a workman and consequently awarded a sum of Rs.3,74,885/- (Rupees three lacs seventy four thousand and eight hundred and eighty five only) with 12% interest from the date of the accident and funeral charges of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only).

4. Aggrieved thereby the insurer preferred an appeal before the High Court of Delhi which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 19th May, 2014. The High Court has come to the conclusion and there is no finding recorded in the impugned order of the relationship between employer and employee in satisfactory manner hence the order passed by the Commissioner on 08th November, 2012 has been set aside by the High Court.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the surveyor's report and other evidence on record. It is mentioned in the surveyor's report, who was appointed by the insurance company, that Ubed the deceased was in employment of the owner of Truck as a cleaner and was getting Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only)as salary. Though the surveyor's report also mentioned that vehicle was sold to someone else but that will not change the nature of the employment of the deceased. The Commissioner was justified in relying on the report and other evidence to hold that the deceased died in course of employment.

6. Consequently we set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore that of the Commissioner.

7. The Appeal is allowed. No costs.