Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J.

1. The instant misc. appeal projects a challenge to the order made by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, Jaipur District-I, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to 'Commissioner'), declining the claim petition of the claimant-appellants.

2. Essential skeletal material facts necessary for the appreciation of the controversy are that the claimant/appellant, instituted a claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of his son (Shyoram @ Shivram), who died while in employment of the employer as driver on tractor bearing Registration No. RJ-1R-4341. It is pleaded case of the appellant that Shivram (deceased), was employed as driver on the tractor and he died on 12th August, 2007, at about 7:30 P.M. while he was repairing the tractor, which all of sudden started and the deceased was ran-over. An FIR No. 438/2007, was registered reporting the alleged accident. During the course of investigation, in response to a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the employer informed the Governmental Environment Agency that Chhitarmal was employed as driver on the tractor while deceased Shivram, use to look after the tractor. The employer/non-appellant was proceeded ex-parte for he did not put in appearance despite service of notice.

3. The Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act of 1923'), on a consideration of pleadings of the parties, framed five issues. For issue No.1 was decided against the claimant/appellant, therefore, declined the claim petition without further proceedings to decide other issues.

4. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant, Mr. Kamal Gupta, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the memo of appeal, vehemently argued that the Commissioner ought to have decided all the issues as contemplated under Rule 32 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 (for short, the 'Rule of 1924'), which is in-consonance with Order 42, Rule 2 CPC. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the claim petition merits acceptance.

5. Learned counsel would further submit that no evidence was brought on record to substantiate the fact that Chhitarmal was driver on the tractor but for response filed by the employer, on service of notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, whereas the eye-witness, who appeared in support of the claim petition, in no uncertain terms deposed that Shivram(deceased), was driver on the tractor and died on the date of incident as the tractor ran-over him while he was carrying out some repair work. The employer/non-appellant, was proceeded ex- parte for he neither appeared before the Commissioner nor did he file reply to the claim petition. Hence, keeping in view the underlying object of the compensation under the Act of 1923, which is a beneficiary legislation; the claim petition ought to have been allowed.

6. Per contra; Mr. Virendra Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for non-appellant-Insurance Company, asserted that there was no evidence brought on record substantiating the factum of deceased being driver on the tractor for no driving licence was produced. It is further urged that burden of proof lies heavily on the claimant to prove the facts pleaded in the claim petition. For there was no evidence produced in support of the fact that Shivram (deceased), was the driver on the tractor and he died in the accident/incident arising out of and in the course of employment; therefore, the Commissioner committed no illegality in declining the claim petition.

7. Moreover, driving license of Chhitarmal was produced and brought on record, which conclusively proved the fact that driver employed on the tractor was Chhitarmal and not Shivram (deceased).

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar, as also carefully scanned the impugned order da