JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):-This is appeal by Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short- the Act) impugning order dated 14.6.2007 of Commissioner under the Act, thereby accepting petition of respondent no.1 and awarding compensation of Rs.58,296/- to respondent no.1 for injuries suffered allegedly during the course of employment. 2. Respondent no.1 filed the claim petition under the Act, allegation alleging that he was employed as driver of Mohinder Singh (respondent no.2 herein) and while driving Tavera vehicle No.Dl-4-CAD-1066 of respondent no.2, the claimant/respondent no.1, during the course of employment, suffered injuries by way of accident while they were going to attend a marriage. 3. Respondent no.2, in his reply, denied that the claimant/respondent no.1 was employed as his driver. The learned Commissioner, vide impugned order, held that it seems quite genuine that the claimant was employed with respondent no.2-herein as driver. Accordingly, compensation was assessed under the Act, and awarded against the appellant and respondent no.2 by passing impugned order dated 14.6.2007. Felling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance company. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant assailed the finding of learned Commissioner on issue no.1 regarding existence of relationship of master and servant between respondents inter se. However, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 relying on Rattan Singh vs. Haryana State Electricity Board, 1999(4) S.C.T. 394, contended that appeal under Section 30(1) of the act is maintainable only when substantial question of law is involved and since no such substantial question of law is involved in the instant appeal, the same is not maintainable. 5. In response to this contention of learned counsel for respondent no.1 learned counsel for the appellant contended that misreading of the evidence on the aforesaid issue constitutes substantial question of law. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be aid that substantial question of law is involved in the instant appeal inasmuch as the finding of the learned Commissioner on issue no.1 relating to relationship of master and servant between the respondents and consequently on issue no.3 that respondent no.1 met with accident during the course of employment with respondent no.2, is completely perverse and unsustainable. 8. 8. Respondent no.2, in his written statement, specifically denied the relationship of master and servant between respondent no.1 and respondent no.2. In spite thereof, respondent no.1 did not adduce any evidence to prove the same except his own self-serving statement. However, the testimony of respondent no.1 was completely shattered in cross-examination when he stated that he had no written proof regarding employment or regarding his salary. Respondent no.1 also admitted that he is relative of respondent no.2 and at the time of accident, both of them were going to attend a marriage. In view of these admissions of respondent no.1 and in view of denial of relationship of master and servant between the respondents by respondents no.2, it is manifest that the said relationship is not proved at all and consequently, it cannot be said that the accident occurred while respondent no.1 was driving the vehicle during the course of employment with respondent no.2. 9. Learned Commissioner observed that the driving licence of respondent no.1 was obtained from Delhi and even respondent no.2 admitted that respondent no.1 was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and, therefore, it seemed quite genuine that respondent no.1 was employed as driver with respondent no.2 and on account thereof, respondent no.1 was behind the steering wheel of the vehicle belonging the respondent no.2. This conclusion, on the basis of aforesaid circumstances, is not legally sustainable. As noticed above, respondent no.1 has admitted that he is relative of respondent no.2. Consequently, on account of relationship, respondent no.1 could be driving the vehicle belonging to respondent no.2. Respondent no.1 also admitted that there is no written proof regarding his employment of regarding his salary. It, therefore, becomes manifest that respondent no.1 was not employed with respondent no.2 although respondent no.1 was driving the vehicle of respondent no.2 at the time of occurrence, possibly because they were related to each other and they were going to attend some marriage. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 contended that even in Daily Diary Report lodged by the respondent no.2 regarding the accident with the police, it was mentioned that respondent no.1 was driver. However, the said report does not mention that respondent no.1 was employed as driver of respondent no.2 and simply mentioned that respondent no.1 was driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. However, the said report does not mention that respondent no.1 was employed as driver of respondent no.2 and simply mentioned that respondent no.1 was driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. In other words, the respondent no.2 simply mentioned that respondent no.1 was driving the vehicle at the time of accident but did not sate that respondent no.1 was employed as driver with respondent no.2. On the contrary, respondent no.2 in his written statement has specifically denied the existence of relationship of master and servant between the respondents. 11. In view of the aforesaid, I have no hesitation in concluding that finding of the learned Commissioner in the impugned order on issue nos.1 and 3 are perverse and not legally sustainable and, therefore, liable to be set aside. It is not all prove that there existed relationship of master and servant between the respondents inter se and consequently it is not prove that respondent no.1 met with accident in the course of his employment with respondent no.2. Consequently, respondent no.1 is not entitled to any compensation. 12. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned order of learned Commissioner dated 14.6.2007 awarding compensation to respondent no.1 is set aside and the claim petition filed by respondent no.1 under the Act, is hereby dismissed. --------------