JUDGMENT

Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

By way of this appeal, Oriental Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and order dated 21.4.1997 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sahjahanpur in Case No.WCA 6 of 1996 awarding compensation of Rs.1,60,559/-with interest at the rate of 12% in favour of claimants-respondent.

2. The deceased was an employee on the vehicle insured with appellant-insurance company and, therefore, the insurance company was not liable to make payment. Hence, the insurance company sadled with the liability. The deceased according to the claimants was a cleaner with respondent no.1 being the owner of the Jeep Number UP-27/5269 which was insured with the appellant.

3. On 22.1.1995 at about 9:30 a.m. the vehicle met with an accident and the truck dashed the jeep from behind causing death of the deceased-Dharmendra Singh @ Pappu.

4. Respondent no.1 contended that the deceased was a cleaner in the vehicle of owner. Learned Commissioner framed several issues.

5. While going through the testimony, learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sahjahanpur has given cogent reasons for awarding the compensation as awarded. Just by oral testimony, if it is contended that the deceased was not an employee cannot be interfered by this Court but the same has been proved by leading evidence.

6. All the facts have been proved before the authorities. The accident occurred during the service of deceased as a cleaner. This is a question of fact decided in favour of the claimants.

7. While going through the factual data as well as judgment of Apex Court would not permit this Court to interfere in the well reasoned order of the Commissioner based on facts.

8. At the outset, it is relevant to discuss the scope of this Court to entertain appeal against the award of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner.

9. The Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 has held as under :

"9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRS sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the Act.

10. The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once, they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as findings of fact."

10. The Apex Court further went on to hold as under :

"15. Such appeal is then heard on the question of admission with a view to find out as to whether it involves any substantial question of law or not. Whether the appeal involves a substantial question of law or not depends upon the facts of each case and needs an examination by the High Court. If the substantial question of law arises, the High Court would admit the appeal for final hearing on merit else w