( 1 ) THE present appeal is by the insurance company seeking to raise the following questions of law: (a) Whether the Commissioner was justified in ignoring his quasi-judicial functions while not considering the evidence placed on record and making the appellant liable to satisfy the award? (b) Whether the Commissioner was justified in entertaining the claim petition without the relationship of workman and employer being established between the respondents? (c) Whether the Commissioner was justified in entertaining the claim petition without production of wound certificate from government hospital where respondent No. 1 claimed to have undergone treatment and in holding that he has suffered permanent disability on the basis of manipulated medical evidence? (d) When the terms of the policy and section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not require a coverage of a cleaner in the LMV, whether the Commissioner was justified in making the appellant insurer liable ignoring rule 100 of the karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules?

( 2 ) THE primary contention on behalf of the appellant is that respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 1 are father and son, respectively. Respondent No. 2 is