JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act/Employees Compensation Act, 1923 against the award of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘Commissioner’) dated 27.02.2012 passed in case titled, ‘Sudesh Devi and another v/s Reliance General Insurance Co. and another’.

2. The facts which arise for consideration in this appeal are, that the deceased-Kulbir Singh was driving Indica Car bearing registration No. JK02AG/6727 from Srinagar to Jammu on 02.07.2009, met with an accident at Shetani Nallah near Banihal, as a result of which, he alongwith two other occupants of the Car died on the spot. The deceased was 26 years old at the time of his death and was drawing a salary of Rs. 5000/- per month plus Rs. 2000/- as trip charges. The said vehicle at the time of accident was insured with appellant-Insurance Company. The appellant-Insurance Company filed its objections before the Commissioner, however, respondent No. 3-Owner of the offending vehicle appeared in person once before the Commissioner, but thereafter as he absented himself, therefore, was proceeded ex-parte.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Commissioner:

“(1) Whether the deceased Kulbir Singh falls under the definition of “employee” as prescribed under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. OPP

(2) Whether the deceased met with an accident arising out of and during the course of his employment for respondent No. 2 OPP

(3) Whether the vehicle in question and involved in accident was driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy at the time of accident. OPR-1

(4) What was the age and wages of the deceased at the time of accident. OPP

(5) Relief.”

4. Before taking up the issues and the finding returned by the Commissioner, it is necessary to refer sub-sections 1(a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act regarding which the appeal lies and the same are reproduced below:

(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely :--

(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half- monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;

(aa) 1 an order awarding interest or penalty under section 4A;]

(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half- monthly payment;

(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;

(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of sub- section (2) of section 12; or

(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:

Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees.”

The other two provisos are not relevant for the consideration of this appeal.

5. The appeal was admitted by this Court on 01.06.2013 but without framing the substantial questions of law. The appellant has, however, framed the substantial questions of law in the grounds A to G of the appeal for determination, they however, are to be considered on the finding returned on the issues and in the light of the pleadings and challenge to the findings.

6. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are taken up together. The respondent No. 1 and the minor son of the deceased Kulbir Singh in Para-2 of the claim petition have stated that on 02.05.2009, while coming from Srinagar to Jammu, the deceased was driving the vehicle Indica Car bearing Registration No. JK02AG-6727 and when he reached near Shetani Nalla, the vehicle met with an accident as a result of which, he alongwith two occupants died on s