1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18.10.2018, passed by the learned Commissioner under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Commissioner’) in Case No. E.C.C.F.-81/2012, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents was allowed and compensation of Rs. 4,22,135/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum was awarded. The non-claimant-appellant Insurance Company was held jointly and severally liable along with the owner-respondent No. 8.

2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that one Shri Ram Niwas was engaged as a driver by respondent No. 8 and was deployed to drive an Indica car bearing No. RJ-21-CA-0843. On 30.05.2012, Shri Ram Niwas was in route from Merta City to Jaipur in the said Indica car for some personal work of the owner of the vehicle. At approximately 7.30 AM, upon reaching Maukhampura at N.H.08, an unknown truck approached from the direction of Ajmer and hit the car from behind, causing it to overturn and meet with an accident. As a result of the said accident, Shri Ram Niwas sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries during the course of treatment. FIR No.200/2012 pertaining to this incident was lodged at Police Station Dudhu.

3. Aggrieved by the untimely demise of Shri Ram Niwas and the alleged loss suffered, the claimant-respondents, who are the dependents of the deceased filed a claim petition to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- asserting that at the time of accident, deceased Ram Niwas was 37 years old and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month along with allowance of Rs. 150/- per day.

4. The owner-respondent No. 8 in his reply before the learned Commissioner, admitted the occurrence of the accident as well as the deceased being driver. It was contended that since the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, the liability, if any, would be that of the appellant-Insurance Company.

5. Thereafter, the appellant Insurance Company filed its reply denying the averments made in the claim petition. The appellant Insurance Company specifically pleaded that there existed no employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No. 8 herein. Further, the alleged accident did not occur during the course of employment. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased was not holding a valid and effective driving license amounting to breach of policy conditions. Lastly, it was contended by the appellant Insurance Company that no notice under Section 10 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1923’) had been served prior to filing the claim petition.

6. After hearing both the parties, the learned Commissioner vide judgment dated 18.10.2018, allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.4,22,135/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization.

7. Aggrieved by the award dated 18.10.2018, the appellant Insurance Company has preferred the present civil misc. appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset assailed the impugned judgment as being illegal and perverse. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Commissioner erred in holding that the accident took place during the course of employment as there was no documentary evidence available on record to prove the fact that the deceased was engaged as driver of the vehicle owned by respondent No.8 and even no documentary evidences were adduced to prove the fact that the deceased was a salaried employee of respondent No. 8.

8.1 Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the claimants-respondents failed to establish the fact that the deceased was in t