Hon'ble HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.—The appeal is against the order dated 30.04.2007 of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul) in W.C.No.101 of 2006 directing the appellant to pay Rs.96,472/- as compensation for the injury suffered by the first respondent due to the accident that arose out of employment on 04.02.2006 in the lorry owned by Elumalai. 2. According to the first respondent, he was employed as a loadman in the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-57-Z-5799 of the second respondent. While he was working as a loadman on 04.02.2006, the lorry involved in an accident with another lorry bearing Registration TN-67-D-8768 at 7.00 p.m. at Kollampatti privu in Dindigul-Trichy Main Road. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-57-Z-5799. Due to the above accident, the left leg and thigh of the first respondent got fractured and that he sustained severe injuries on chest and also on the hip. The first respondent also suffered with multiple injuries all over the body. The accident arose out of and during the course of his employment. He was taken to the hospital immediately where he was treated as in-patient for a long time. According to the first respondent, he suffered 100% permanent disability and he could not attend the work of loadman, due to the accident Thus, the appellant insurer of the lorry, is liable to pay compensation. 3. The second respondent is the lorry owner, who remained exparte. The appellant who was the second respondent in W.C.No.101 of 2006, filed a counter statement stating that the first respondent was not employed by the second respondent as a load-man and therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation. It was their case that the first respondent was a gratuitous passenger. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. 4. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the first respondent examined himself as a witness and the first respondent also examined one Doctor on his side. Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on side of the first respondent. The appellant examined two witnesses and also marked Exs.R-1 to R-4. 5. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. 4. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the first respondent examined himself as a witness and the first respondent also examined one Doctor on his side. Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on side of the first respondent. The appellant examined two witnesses and also marked Exs.R-1 to R-4. 5. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour passed an award dated 30.04.2007 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.96,472/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by the second respondent in the accident, which was caused due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-57-Z-5799 owned by the second respondent. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour relied on the certificate issued by the Doctor that the first respondent suffered 21% permanent partial disability. The age of the first respondent was taken as 24 based on the wound certificate that was marked as Ex.A-2. 6. Notice of admission was ordered by this Court on 24.10.2007. The first respondent has entered appearance and the matter is today taken up for final disposal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence let in by the first respondent that he was employed by the second respondent as a loadman, except his evidence. In those circumstances, it is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Lobour have erroneously held that the first respondent was a workman employed by the second respondent. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the first respondent deposed before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour that he was employed as a loadman. when that evidence is sufficient to establish that he was employed by the second respondent, in the absence of any contra evidence, the finding of the Deputy Commissioner could not be faulted. It is submitted that the appellant had no material to dis-prove the case of the first respondent. More importantly, it is further submitted that Ex.A-1, First Information Report, filed immediately after the accident, would make it very clear that the first respondent was employed as a loadman in the lorry of the second respondent. This documentary evidence is sufficient to prove the employment of the first respondent. 9. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 10. This documentary evidence is sufficient to prove the employment of the first respondent. 9. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 10. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the first respondent was not a workman employed by the second respondent as a loadman. According to the appellant, there was no evidence to the effect that the first respondent was a workman employed by the second respondent. The submission of the appellant has no merit, particularly when the First Information Report states that the first respondent was employed as a loadman in the lorry and that the First Information Report was lodged immediately after the accident. Apart from the oral evidence of first respondent, the First Information Report which was marked as Ex.A-1, is a sufficient proof that the first respondent was employed as a loadman by the second respondent. There is no other contra evidence let in by the second respondent in this regard. In absence of any contra evidence, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has arrived at the correctly conclusion that the first respondent was employed as a loadman by the second respondent. 11. Further, whether the first respondent was a workman or not is purely a question of fact and no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. 12. Hence, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.