The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court is confined only to examine substantial questions of law, and cannot reappreciate the evidence and finding of fact recorded on the evidence led by both the parties.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - Instant appeal has been submitted against the judgment dated 17.04.2013 passed by the Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Bundi (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') in Claim Petition No. WCC/F/37/2011 by which the claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents has been allowed and the appellant-Insurance Company has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,43,228/- to the claimants-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants-respondents filed a claim petition under the provisions of Workmens' Compensation Act, claiming compensation on account of death of Kailash Chand, who died in an accident occurred on 05.03.2011. It was stated in the claim petition that the death was occurred during the course of employment, hence, the claimants-respondents are entitled to get compensation as the deceased was working as a driver and drawing salary of Rs. 8000/- per month.

3. The owner of the vehicle submitted reply to the claim petition and admitted that the deceased was working as a Khalasi but he has not appeared in the witness box. And the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition and raised objection that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the insured and the deceased, as the deceased was said to be a Khalasi, while in the claim petition it was pleaded that he was acting as a First Driver in the vehicle.

4. It was also pleaded that the accident has occurred when the vehicle in question was driven by the first driver Girdhari Meena. It was also pleaded that no premium was taken for other driver or other person, hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to make any sort of compensation to the claimants-respondents.

5. After hearing the parties, the Commissioner allowed the claim petition directing the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs. 10,43,228/- to the claimants-respondents.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 17.04.2013, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred instant appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Commissioner has committed an error while allowing the claim petition as the claimants-respondents have failed to prove the relationship of employer and employee and in the claim petition, the status of the deceased is mentioned as driver, while in the evidence, it is stated that the deceased was working as a Khalasi. Reiterating the pleadings made in the reply, counsel further submitted that since no premium was taken for the second driver/person, hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to make compensation to the claimants-respondents.

8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P. Paul & Anr. reported in (2013) 2 SCC 41.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant and submitted that the deceased was working as a driver with the owner of the insured vehicle, but the owner of the vehicle submitted in its reply that the deceased was working as a Khalasi and he has not appeared in the witness box. Learned counsel further submitted that the finding of facts has been recorded by the learned Commissioner, which is based on sound appreciation of evidence, so, the same are not liable to be disturbed by this Court.

10. Learned counsel in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Golla Rajanna Etc. v. The Divisional Manager And Anr." reported in 2017(1) SCC 45 and in the case of "North East Karnataka Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha" reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the finding of fact cannot be allowed to be reagitated and the limited jurisdiction has been given t