Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. This appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is by the insurer. Valid insurance cover for a lorry belonging to the second respondent is admitted. The first respondent claimed that he met with an accident which falls under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, the `Act'). His allegation was that while he was unloading goods from the second respondent's lorry, a wooden plank of that lorry gave way injuring him, ultimately leading to paralysis. The testimony of the second respondent's representative clinchingly established the master and servant relationship between the respondents. The material evidence on record showed that the first respondent suffered the injuries, underwent treatment and that the competent Medical Board certified that he has 50% physical disability and that he suffers 100% occupational disability, having regard to the fact that he is a headload worker. The Commissioner passed an award taking the disability of 100%.

2. Before us, the insurer raises two points. Firstly, it is argued that there is no relationship between the respondents, which could be termed as one of a master an