Mr. Mohinder Pal, J.: - This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 31.08.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation Act, Circle, Hissar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’).

2. It is case of the claimant (respondent herein) that on 31.01.2003, he was driving the truck started from Gantour after loading the cotton bales. The truck was unloaded at Bandi, Himachal Pradesh. At that time, Dilbag Singh was Conductor on this truck. When the truck reached near Wasim District (Maharahstra) in the intervening night of 31.01.2003 and 01.02.2003 at about 12.00 o’ clock, all of a sudden Kamani of the truck broke down and truck turned turtle and as a result of that, the claimant received multiple serious injuries including the fracture upon right leg. He was medico legally examined in the hospital at Wasim District and remained admitted in Chawla Nursing Home Hisar from 06.02.2003 to 16.02.2003. While in hospital, operations were performed and an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was spent on treatment, medicines and special diet etc. An attendant and separate transport was also required to be arranged. The claimant became permanent disabled and was enable to do the job of driver. The claimant claimed his age to be 38 years and at that time, he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month plus Rs.60/- per day as pocket expenses and thus totaling Rs.7,800/- per month.

3. It has been submitted that the accident has taken place during the course of employment with respondent No.1. After accident, the claimant filed the claim petition under Section 163-A before the MACT Hisar but the same was got dismissed as withdrawn due to some technical defects and, thereafter, an application under Workmen’s Compensation Act was moved on and a separate application for condonation of delay was also filed.

4. After notice, respondent No.1 admitted the contents of employment, accident, injury to the claimant and the fact that the truck in question was insured with respondent No.2 (appellant herein). However, respondent No.2 i.e. the Insurance Company in separate written statement contested the claim petition and requested for dismissal as having been filed in collusion with respondent No.1. It was submitted that the claimant was real brother of respondent No.1 and the present claim petition has been filed to grab the compensation amount. It is submitted that the appellant was not in employment of respondent No.1 as driver of truck No.HR-39/3963 at the time of alleged accident and the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence at that time as the truck was being driver in contravention of the terms and conditions and limitations to the use of vehicle. It is prayed that the petition was liable to be dismissed.

5. The following issues were framed by the trial Court:

1. Whether there is any relationship of master and servant between the applicant and respondent No.1?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the amount of compensation as claimed in the claim petition, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. Relief.”

6. The Commissioner took up all the issues together and decided the claim petition in favour of the claimant by awarding compensation of Rs.2,27,472/- payable within 30 days, failing which he was ordered that respondent No.2 will be liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order till its realization.

7. Aggrieved from this order of the Commissioner, respondent No.2-Insurance Company has come in appeal, which is pending before this Court.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents available on the file.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised three fold arguments. It is submitted that respondent No.1 was real brother of respondent No.2 and the claim petition is filed in collusion with each other. To support his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to cross-examination of respondent No.1 recorded in