The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the liability of the employer to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the determination of 'course of employment' and 'arising out of employment' in the context of employee injuries or death.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri. S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Pawan Giri, Advocate holding brief of Shri B.N. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed against judgement and award dated 31.05.2014 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/ Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bulandshahr in E.C.A Case No. 24 of 2011 (Smt. Shakuntla Devi and another Vs. Veerpal Singh and another) by which the learned Commissioner has compensation of Rs. 4,42,740/- along-with 12% simple interest from the date of filing of the petition.

3. Before the learned Commissioner an application was given under Section 3/4 Workmen Compensation Act (Employee Compensation Act), 1923, stating that the son of the claimant Naresh Kumar Sharma, aged about 22 years was employed as conductor/cleaner on TATA LPT No. U.P 75-A/4115 and he was given a salary of Rs. 4,000/-per month with Rs. 50 per day for diet. The accident took place on 24.01.2009, when as per direction of the vehicle owner the deceased after loading vegetables on the said vehicle was going to Noida with the driver Bhanu Prakash. The vehicle reached in between Kasna-Tuglakpur, some noise started coming from the gear box of the vehicle whereupon driver Bhanu Prakash stopped the vehicle on the road side and sought direction from the vehicle owner on telephone and on his direction sent the deceased to village Tuglakpur to bring mechanic. The deceased took lift on a motor-cycle and while going to Tuglakpur, when the motorcycle reached close to Pari Chauk, some unknown motor-cycle dashed on the motor-cycle and the motor-cycle slipped on the road side and the deceased sustained serious injuries on his head. He was taken to Kailash Hospital, Noida. His condition was serious and when the family members of the deceased reached, he was admitted to Sharda Hospital, Noida and on 24.01.2009 in the midnight the head of the deceased was put to serious operation and during treatment on 01.02.2009, he died in the hospital. FIR was lodged, inquest was prepared and the other police papers were submitted with the application. The deceased died during the course of employment of the vehicle owner and the said vehicle was insured at the time of accident, therefore, this petition has been filed.

4. Defendant no. 1 filed written statement and admitted the contents of para no. 1 to 4 and denied the contents of para no. 6 to 7. He admitted that the deceased was in his employment and on his direction he and the driver along-with the said vehicle went to Sikandraband and after loading vegetables they were going to Noida, when the accident took place and the deceased died because of injuries sustained in the accident and he was in the course of employment. He was paid Rs.4,000/- a month. The RC, Insurance, fitness and driving license were valid at the time of accident. If the claimant is entitled for compensation, the responsibility to pay compensation is on the Insurance Company.

5. Insurance Company filed written statement denying the allegations of the petition and also denying the employment of the deceased, his age and his salary. The Insurance Company has further stated in order to obtain compensation in a planned way, the deceased have been shown to be conductor/cleaner in the said vehicle. The accident has not been caused by the said vehicle but by some unknown motor-cycle and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. After taking evidence and hearing both the sides the learned Commissioner has passed the impugned award and the same has been challenged by the appellant.

7. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the award is arbitrary, illegal and against the evidence on record. There was no evidence regarding the deceased being in the employment of the car owner. Substantial questions of law was raised on the basis of which it was requested that the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

8. Vide order dated 08.07.2014 of this Court the