JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

This appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (formerly Workmen's Compensation Act) is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Labour Court, Haldwani, in E.C. Case No.114/2012, whereby the learned Commissioner partly allowed the claim petition filed by dependents of deceased employee Ashok Kumar Kohli and awarded compensation of Rs.3,33,966/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The present appellant, insurance company (Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.) has challenged the said award.

2. The brief facts as found in the proceedings before the Commissioner are that Ashok Kumar Kohli, aged about 47 years, was employed as a driver of vehicle Tata Tempo No.UA-04D-2542, allegedly owned by Respondent No. 5, Smt. Hema Devi. On 21.11.2010, while driving the said vehicle from Haldwani to Rudrapur for transport-related work, near Nainital – Haldwani road, the vehicle met with an accident while trying to save a stray cow. The vehicle overturned, causing grievous injuries to the driver. He was immediately taken to District Hospital, Rudrapur, where he succumbed to his injuries the next day on 22.11.2010. It was alleged that the deceased was employed as a permanent driver, earning Rs.6000/- per month with daily meal allowances. The legal representatives filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Employees’ Compensation Act claiming Rs.10 lakhs as compensation.

3. The claimants, comprising the widow and minor children of deceased Ashok Kumar Kohli, asserted that the deceased was employed as a permanent driver under Respondent No. 5 (Smt. Hema Devi) and was driving Tempo vehicle no. UA-04D-2542 for transporting goods. It was stated that the vehicle belonged to Respondent No. 5 and remained under her supervision, which used it for commercial transport purposes. They submitted that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.6000/- per month, along with food and boarding allowances, and was fully dependent on this employment. The claimants relied upon vehicle registration, postmortem report, salary certificate, and death certificate, contending that accident occurred in the course of employment, squarely attracting section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, making Respondent No. 5 and the insurer jointly liable.

4. Respondent No. 5 (registered owner of the tempo) denied owning the vehicle and denied employment of the deceased. It was stated that she had never hired the deceased as a driver and no salary was paid by her. She further argued that the deceased was not engaged for any transport work on the date of accident, and that she had no knowledge of accident or any claim made by the family. She further disputed any employer-employee relationship, contending that no documentary evidence such as appointment letter, salary receipts, or attendance records have been produced.

5. Respondent No. 6 (alleged new owner) denied ownership of the vehicle at the time of accident, submitting that the vehicle had not been transferred prior to the accident. He also rejected any employer relationship with deceased, contending that he never engaged the deceased in any capacity. He argued that the claimants wrongly confused him with the alleged owner, and no liability could be fastened on him.

6. The appellant/insurance company submitted that the vehicle was not registered in the name of Respondent No.5 and that no employer-employee relationship existed at the time of accident. It also contended that deceased did not have valid authorization to drive the vehicle, and no document was produced to prove employer liability. The appellant disputed wages, age of deceased, and dependency. It further argued that even if deceased was driving, he was not on duty and thus, the accident did not occur in the course of employment. The appellant also questioned admissibility of claimants’ documents, alleging fabrication and lack of authenticity.

7.