JUDGMENT S.N. SATYANARAYANA, J.—When this appeal has come up today for admission, Lower Court record is secured. On behalf of appellant insurance company, it is represented by learned counsel Sri. S.V. Hegade. So far as respondents are concerned, 2nd respondent, has remained ex parte and though legal representatives of deceased 1st respondent are represented by learned counsel and he has filed vakalath has not come before the Court. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: Deceased 1st respondent herein was claimant, before Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Chitradurga in Cr. No. 408/2006, which was filed by him contending that on 24.6.2006 while he was working in lorry bearing No. KA-17/A-1620 belonging to 2nd respondent in front of Vijaya Fertilisers, driver of said lorry moved the same negligently resulting in claimant falling down from lorry and getting seriously injured. In this behalf he lodged a complaint at Hiriyur Police Station on 8.7.2006 at about 6 p.m. Subsequently, he filed claim petition before Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Chitradurga seeking compensation for the injuries said to have suffered by him in the course of his alleged employment in lorry bearing No. KA-17/A-1620 belonging to 2nd respondent herein. In the said proceedings 1st respondent owner of lorry remained ex parte. So far as 2nd respondent insurer of said lorry entered appearance and contested proceedings by filing statement of objections. 3. In the said proceedings, after recording evidence of claimant and also that of one Dr. M.S. Rajesh, on hearing the counsel for claimant and as well as contesting 2nd respondent insurance company, Commissions proceeded to accept the contentions of claimant that there exist relationship of employee and employer between himself and owner of lorry bearing No. KA-17/A-1620, that he has suffered certain injuries in an untoward accident, which has taken place on 24.6.2006 at about 9.30 p.m., resulting in injuries to claimant, that said injures are caused in the course of his employment with 2nd respondent and proceeded to allow the claim petition awarding compensation to him in a sum of Rs. 77,351/-payable with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till date of deposit. The 2nd respondent insurance company being aggrieved by the order of Commissioner dated 27.7.2007 in Cr. No. 408/2006 has come up in this appeal challenging the same. 4. 77,351/-payable with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till date of deposit. The 2nd respondent insurance company being aggrieved by the order of Commissioner dated 27.7.2007 in Cr. No. 408/2006 has come up in this appeal challenging the same. 4. In this proceedings, at the stage of admission notice was issued to respondents and also the records were called for. After receipt of records this Court felt that this matter could be disposed of on merits in view of the records being received. Accordingly, on going through the grounds of appeal and also the finding of Commissioner in the order impugned this Court observe that following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal: (1) Whether there is perversity on the part of Commissioner in appreciation of evidence available on records while, considering the petition filed by 1st respondent/claimant? (2) Whether claimant/1st respondent Thippe Swamy has established the relationship of employee and employer between himself and 2nd respondent/owner of lorry bearing No. KA-17/A-1620? Heard the Counsel for appellant. Perused the grounds of appeal and finding of Commissioner in the order impugned in the light of pleadings and evidence available on record. On appreciation of same, this Court answer the aforesaid first substantial question of law in the affirmative and the second substantial question of law in the negative for the following: REASONS 5. The fact that 2nd respondent herein is owner of lorry bearing No. KA-17/A-1620 and said lorry is insured with appellant herein is not in dispute. However, the fact whether claimant/1st respondent herein was employee of 2nd respondent herein is a matter which is required to be ascertained on the basis of material evidence available on record. As could be seen from records, FIR in No. 0345 dated 8.7.2006 is registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by claimant/Thippe Swamy on 8.7.2006 at about 6 p.m. The contents of said complaint discloses that claimant/Thippe Swamy is a freelance coolie working near the shop of Sri. Chikkanna under the name and style ‘Vijaya Fertilisers’ situated at Hiriyur. According to him, on 24.6.2006 at about 9.30 p.m., the lorry belonging to 2nd respondent, Arifulla bearing No. KA-17/A-1620 came to said shop along with a load of fertilisers. Chikkanna under the name and style ‘Vijaya Fertilisers’ situated at Hiriyur. According to him, on 24.6.2006 at about 9.30 p.m., the lorry belonging to 2nd respondent, Arifulla bearing No. KA-17/A-1620 came to said shop along with a load of fertilisers. When claimant along with other coolies was unloading fertiliser bags at the instructions of Chikkanna, owner of shop, the driver of said lorry moved the same without giving any indication resulting in claimant/Thippe Swamy falling down from said lorry and suffering injuries to his hip and other parts of body. It is his case that immediately after accident Chikkanna informed him that he should get himself treated from Doctor and Chikkanna would reimburse all the expenses. Based on the assurance he went to Doctor and got himself treated. Thereafter, since Chikkanna did not reimburse the expenses incurred by him for his treatment, he is lodging the complaint. In the said complaint, he clearly says that there is negligence on the part of owner of Vijaya Fertilisers shop, namely Chikkanna in not attending to injuries of claimant. In the said complaint he also says that he does not know the name and address of the owner and driver of lorry bearing No. KA-17/A-1620. 6. Based on the said complaint FIR was recorded. However, recording of the said proceedings is slightly doubtful for the reason that Ex. P8, which is produced in this Court is a complaint dated 6.7.2006, i.e., complaint of Thippeswamy’s wife lodged at the same police station two days before that. The record does not disclose what is the fate of said complaint and whether any FIR was lodged on that or not is a mystery. However, contents of Ex.P8 and complaint of Thippeswamy appended to Ex.P1 are one and the same. 7. In addition to that there are several documents which are produced to substantiate the claim of Thippeswamy. They are charge-sheet which is at Ex.P2, copy of the motor vehicle accident report which is at Ex.P3, statement of co-employees which is at Exs.P4 and 5, wound certificate which is at Ex.P6, endorsement issued by police regarding filing of charge-sheet against the driver of lorry bearing No. KA-17/A-1620 which is at Ex.P7, disability certificate issued by PW.2, Dr. Rajesh which is at Ex.P9 and two x-ray certificates which are at Exs.P10 and P11. Rajesh which is at Ex.P9 and two x-ray certificates which are at Exs.P10 and P11. Surprisingly, Commissioner has not looked into any of these documents and not applied his mind to say how said documents would establish the relationship of employee and employer between claimant and owner of lorry bearing No. KA-17/A-1620, namely Ariffulla. 8. As could be seen from the complaint appended to FIR lodged by claimant/ Thippeswamy and also Ex.P8 complaint lodged by his wife, it is clearly seen that in both complaints the allegation of negligence is against the owner of Vijaya Fertilisers where the claimant Thippeswamy was working on the ill-fated day. It is further seen that in both documents there is no reference to recitals of his employment with Ariffulla in the said lorry bearing No. KA-17/A-1620 at any point of time. Even otherwise, regarding date of accident also in all the documents the date of accident, is referred to as 24.6.2006, whereas in wound certificate, which is at Ex.P6 and disability certificate which is at Ex.P6, the date of accident is said to be 26.6.2006 at 5.30 p.m. There is palpable difference between the time and date of accident mentioned in these two documents and as well as Exs.P1 and P8. Surprisingly, Commissioner has turned blind eye to all these things and it does not stand to reason how he has assessed material evidence available on record before proceeding to pass the award in favour of claimant. 9. On going through the order impugned the one and only thing that comes to the mind of this Court is probably claimant Thippeswamy must have suffered injuries in some accident in connection with his avocation in that place, which he is trying to link to the aforesaid lorry. Further, the manner in which Ariffulla/owner of lorry is contesting this matter also clearly establishes that conveniently he has remained ex parte in the proceedings before Commissioner and as well as this Court probably to allow this claim petition to be decided without he coming on record substantiating the false claim or in the contrary giving true facts and to deny the falsified claim of Thippeswamy. In any event of the matter, this Court find that entire proceedings initiated by claimant/Thippeswamy before Commissioner is a proceedings which could not have been entertained by Commissioner but for the fact that Commissioner also appears to be having soft comer towards claimant in somehow accommodating him to get some compensation from the owner of lorry which is not involved in the said accident resulting in injuries to claimant if any. 10. In that view of matter, this Court find that there is no justification to allow the fraudulent award passed by Commissioner in Cr. No. 408/2006 dated 27.7.2007. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the appeal filed by insurance company is allowed. 11. In view of the appeal being allowed, amount in deposit is ordered to be released in favour of appellant.