ORDER 31.8.2004 — Heard Mr. S.S. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, at length. 2. This A.H.O. has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Miscellaneous Appeal No.132 of 1994. That appeal was preferred by the appellant against the award passed on 29.10.1993 by the Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Cuttack. Applicant Suka Sahoo claim¬ing to be the mother of deceased Suryamani Sahoo, claimed for compensation for the admitted death of the said deceased due to an accident occurred by the Truck bearing Registration No. AMZ-6530. The deceased was 27 years old by the date of the aforesaid accident and death. Compensation was claimed on the ground that the applicant is the sole heir and successor of the deceased and that the deceased was the only earning-hand having a monthly income of Rs.900/- (rupees nine hundred) as the Helper of the said Truck, died in course of the said employment. The owner of the truck, in spite of notice, did not appear to contest and therefore, the appellant as the insurer of the said vehicle contested the claim of the applicant. Three witnesses were exam¬ined by the claimant including herself as P.W. No.1 in proof of the employment and the accident and also the applicant relied on documentary evidence, i.e., the papers prepared by the police agency during the course of the investigation. Appellant examined one witness, i.e., the investigator of the Insurance Company as O.P.W. No.1. On assessment of such evidence, learned Commissioner recorded all the findings on all the issues in favour of the applicant and granted a compensation of Rs.70, 941.05 paise. Appellant, as noted above, challenged that award in Miscellaneous Appeal No.132 of 1994. Learned Single Judge, on due consideration of the contention of the appellant, did not find good reason to interfere with the impugned award and accordingly while recording the concurrent finding on fact, approved that award and dismissed the appeal. 3. Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant argues that, employment of the deceased as the Helper of the truck is not proved from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and that has been disputed from the evidence of O.P.W. No.1 and that aspect was not properly considered by the Courts below. 3. Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant argues that, employment of the deceased as the Helper of the truck is not proved from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and that has been disputed from the evidence of O.P.W. No.1 and that aspect was not properly considered by the Courts below. After going through the impugned award and the judgment and the contention of learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any substance in that argument in as much as all that the witnesses have said that the deceased was engaged by the Driver of the Truck. That statement cannot be regarded as employment by the Driver. Employment is being made by the Pay Master. Therefore, the Driver may be the medium to employ the deceased, but the owner of the Truck having not denied paying the wages of the deceased, therefore, the conclusion of the Commissioner accepting the owner as the employ¬er cannot be found to be incorrect. Apart from that, the evidence of O.P.W. No.1 is hearsay evidence in as much as in course of the enquiry some persons made statement before him that the deceased was working as a vegetable-vendor. The persons, who made such statement, were not produced before the Commissioner to undergo the test of cross-examination. Therefore, the evidence of O.P.W. No.1 neither proves that the deceased was vegetable-vendor nor disproves the claim of the applicant that her deceased son was the Helper of the Truck. Under such circumstance, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award and the judgment of the appellate Court. Accordingly the A.H.O. is dismissed. A.H.O. dismissed.