Mr. G. Narendar, J.

This appeal is listed for admission and at the request of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. The parties are referred to by their nomenclature before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant has made a claim for compensation in respect of a calamity that occurred way back in 2009. The claimant, who is the 1st respondent herein has preferred a petition under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act [henceforth referred to as "the Act" for the purpose of convenience], praying for compensation on account of the injuries sustained in an accident. It is the case of the claimant that on 23.11.2009 he was proceeding to Ajara in the tractor and trailer bearing reg. No. KA-36/P-3223 belonging to the 1st respondent/owner and after loading bricks at Ajara and while they were returning, near Gadhinglaj-Sankeshwar road, the tyre of the tractor suffered punctured. Hence the tractor and trailer was stopped. In the meantime, the claimant wanted relieve himself and went to answer the nature's call and he started to cross the road. At that time, a motorcycle which was being ridden at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came and crushed into the claimant and fled away. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to K.L.E. Hospital, Belagavi, where he was treated as an in-patient for more than a month. He has incurred expenses in excess of Rs. 1,50,000-00 towards medical expense. Prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and was earning Rs. 4,000-00 p.m. by employment as a coolie in the aforesaid tractor. On account of the injuries, he has become physically disabled and unable to eke out his livelihood as he was prior to the accident.

The 1st respondent/owner of the tractor and trailer did not appear and contest the claim. Therefore, he has been placed ex-parte.

The 2nd respondent/insurer has appeared and filed its objections raising standard objections and denying the petition averments. Therein, it was contended that the claimant has not suffered injuries on account of the use of the vehicle and that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the 1st respondent. Hence the insurer was not liable to compensate any liability on behalf of the 1st respondent and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

The claimant examined himself as P.W.l and one Dr. S.R.Anaadi, as P.W.2 only in order to depose regarding the disability suffered by him and also got marked the documents Exs.Pl to 9. The insurer got examined one of its officers as R.W.l and got marked a copy of the insurance policy as Ex.R2(1).

The Commissioner, after a detailed examination of the material on record was pleased to formulate the following 7 issues:

(VERNACULAR MATTER)

After hearing the parties and upon consideration of the pleadings and material evidence before him, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was pleased to allow the petition by granting a compensation of Rs. 1,69,394-00 along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the Judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer/2nd respondent is before the Court as the appellant.

4. The appellant has formulated the following substantial questions of law for consideration;

(a) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is justified in saddling the liability on the appellant insurance company against the provision of Section 140 and 143 of M.V. Act 1988?

(b) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is justified in coming to a conclusion that the injuries caused to the petitioner were in the course of the employment and arising out of the employment in spite of the evidence on record to show that the injuries are not caused by the use of the insured vehicle?

(c) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is justified in saddling the liability on the appellant insurance com