The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the circumstances of the accident, insurance coverage, and the deceased's employment, leading to the court's decision to set aside the impugned award.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal, under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 has been preferred by the Appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 8th of December, 2012 passed by the learned Commissioner, Kashmir Division, Srinagar/ Deputy Labour Commissioner, Srinagar in a claim Petition titled ‘Abdul Aziz Bohru & Anr. v. Ghulam Rasool Sheikh & Ors.’, whereby the claimants were held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,94,120/- in terms of Section 4 read with Schedule (IV) of the Act of 1923, from the date of the announcement of the award.

2. The impugned award has been assailed by the Appellant-Insurance Company, inter alia, on the grounds that the award is against the facts as well as law; that the deceased Nazir Ahmad Bohru was in the employment of Respondent-Ghulam Rasool Sheikh and got killed in an unfortunate accident as he was crushed by a falling stone from the Stone Quarry of the said Respondent-Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, while extracting stones and under the personal accident policy, the Respondent-Fareeda had received compensation (insured amount) from the Appellant-Insurance Company.

3. It was alleged that the claimants-father and wife of the deceased filed a claim before the Commissioner for the compensation, claiming that the deceased while working with a Tipper got injured and succumbed; that this fact was brought to the notice of the learned Commissioner with a plea that the Appellant was not liable to pay the compensation in the Petition filed by the claimants, showing the deceased as having been employed with the alleged offending vehicle (Tipper); that the death of the deceased had been compensated by paying the compensation by the Appellant-Insurance Company for the employment of the deceased as a labourer for extracting stones from the Stone Quarry of the Respondent-Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, therefore, the Company, as the insurer of the vehicle, was not liable to pay compensation, showing the deceased as an employee of the Respondent-Mohammad Ramzan Rather, as owner of the alleged offending vehicle; that, without admitting the fact that the deceased was employed with the Tipper as a labourer, as has been claimed and held by the learned Commissioner, even if it is so, still the Appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, on the ground that the deceased was in the employment of Respondent-Ghulam Rasool Sheikh and not Respondent-Mohammad Ramzan Rather, in whose name the insurance contract existed with the Appellant-Insurance Company; that under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, under which the impugned award has been passed by the learned Commissioner, it is only the employer who is initially responsible to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased employee or the insured employee, whatever the case may be and, in the case on hand, the deceased, undoubtedly, had been in the employment of Respondent-Ghulam Rasool Sheikh and not Respondent-Mohammad Ramzan Rather at the time of accident and, finally, it was prayed that, there being substantial question of law in the appeal, the same be allowed and the impugned award be set aside.

4. The claimants filed a claim Petition under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 before the learned Commissioner on 25th of April, 2016, asserting therein that one Nazir Ahmad Bohru S/O Applicant No.1 (now deceased) and husband of Applicant No.2 was working with the Non-Applicant No.1 in his Stone Quary at Athwajan, Srinagar as Loader; that on 31st of August, 2005, the deceased, while loading the stones in Tipper bearing No. JKE-4737, met with an accident and succumbed to his injuries in the Hospital on the same day.

5. The learned Commissioner framed the following issues for trial of the claim Petition:

“1) Whether the accident to the deceased has arisen out of and in the course of his employment;

2) Whether the Vehicle No. JKE-4737 involved in the a