JUDGMENT :

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 05.02.2016 passed by the Court of learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Sikar (Raj.) [for short 'the learned Commissioner'] in Case No. WCCF 09/2012, both the Insurance Company as well as the claimants have preferred the instant appeals, hence the same are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants have filed a claim petition under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 before the Court of Employees' Compensation Commissioner, Sikar claiming compensation on account of the loss suffered by them due to death of Bhanwarlal who died in an accident occurred on 13.10.2011. It was further stated in the claim petition that the death of the deceased occurred in the capacity of the driver during the course of employment of the non-claimant Ramdevaram. It was also pleaded that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 35 years and he was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month.

3. The owner of the vehicle filed reply to the claim petition in which the employment of the deceased was admitted. The appellant-Insurance Company filed the reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made in the claim petition.

4. After considering the documents available on record and pleadings made by the respective parties, the learned Compensation allowed the claim petition directing the Insurance Company to pay a compensation of Rs.6,52,280/- with interest to the claimants. Feeling aggrieved by the same, both the Insurance Company as well as the claimants have preferred the instant misc. appeals.

5. The claimants have submitted the instant appeal for enhancement of the award passed by the court below, while the Insurance Company has submitted the instant appeal on the ground that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and the accident occurred when the deceased was crossing the railway track.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the deceased was not working under the employment of the respondent No. 5-Ramdevaram. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation determined by the learned Commissioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshthi v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvall reported in 2007 ACJ 1 SC wherein it has been held that the finding of fact can be adjudicated as substantial question of law.

7. The argument raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company is that since the vehicle was not involved in the accident, hence there was no question of employment of the deceased with respondent No. 5-Ramdevaram. No such substantial question of law has been framed in the memo of appeal and only arguments have been raised without framing such question of law. While as per the mandate of Section 30 of the Act of 2013, the appeal against the judgment and award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is maintainable only on the question of law.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company and stated that no substantial question of law is involved in the instant case and recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a view in the case of North East Karnataka Transport Corporation v. Sujatha reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514 in Para Nos. 9 and 10 as under :

“9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependants o