JUDGMENT By the Court.—The present Appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 against the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.2010 passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Agra whereby compensation amounting to Rs. 3,65,710/- with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been awarded to the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 on account of the death of Shakil Abbas in an accident which took place on 13th July, 2009 at 5.00 a.m. 2. The claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed Claim Case being W.C.A. No. 127 of 2009 before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Agra, inter alia, stating that the claimant-respondent No. 1 was the widow of the said Shakil Abbas, the claimant-respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were the parents of the said Shakil Abbas and the claimant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were the children of the said Shakil Abbas; and that the said Shakil Abbas was employed as cleaner on Truck No. RJ 11 GA-2418 (herein-after also referred to as “ the vehicle in question”) owned by Ravi Shanker Sharma (respondent No. 6 herein) on a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month and Rs. 100/- per day towards diet expenses; and that the said Shakil Abbas had gone on the vehicle in question as cleaner from Agra to Delhi; and that when the said Shakil Abbas was returning on the vehicle in question as cleaner from Delhi to Agra and the vehicle in question reached near Ballabh Garh on Agra Delhi Road at 5.00 a.m. on 13th July, 2009, the vehicle in question collided with another vehicle, as a result of which, the said Shakil Abbas sustained serious injuries and he died during his treatment. 3. Despite notice having been sent to the owner of the vehicle in question (Ravi Shanker Sharma-respondent No. 6 herein) by Registered Post and despite several opportunities having been given to him, the said owner did not appear in the case nor did he file his Written Statement, and consequently the Order dated 24.12.2009 was passed directing the case to proceed ex parte against him. 4. The Appellant-Insurance Company filed its Written Statement denying the averments made on behalf of the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in the Claim Case. 5. The claimant-respondent Nos. 4. The Appellant-Insurance Company filed its Written Statement denying the averments made on behalf of the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in the Claim Case. 5. The claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in support of their case, filed copies of the First Information Report, Insurance Policy in respect of the vehicle in question, Registration Certificate in respect of the vehicle in question, Panchnama of the deceased, Postmortem Report, Notice with Registered Postal Receipt, Supurdginama regarding Truck and cutting of the Newspaper regarding accident. 6. Smt. Mumina (claimant-respondent No. 1) was examined as a witness on behalf of the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 7. On behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company, Report of the investigator Nikhil Chandra Gupta alongwith statements of certain persons and copy of the Claim Form, were filed. 8. The said Nikhil Chandra Gupta was examined as a witness on behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company. 9. On the basis of the consideration of the material on record, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner concluded that the said Shakil Abbas was employed as cleaner on the vehicle in question owned by Ravi Shanker Sharma (respondent No. 6 herein); and that during the course of his employment and while discharging duties of the employment, the said Shakil Abbas sustained injuries in an accident on 12/13.7.2009 wherein the vehicle in question collided with another vehicle bearing Registration No. HR 55-1307, and he died during his treatment. 10. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner further assessed the salary of the said Shakil Abbas as Rs. 3,372/- on the basis of minimum wages and dearness allowance as fixed by the State Government. 11. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner assessed the age of the said Shakil Abbas as 25 years on the basis of Postmortem Report. 12. The Tribunal further held that the vehicle in question was insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company for the period with effect from 30th May, 2009 to 29th May, 2010, and the said fact was admitted by the investigator of the Appellant-Insurance Company. 13. On the basis of the above conclusions, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner computed the amount of compensation as Rs. 3,65,710/- 14. We have heard Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, and perused the record. 15. 13. On the basis of the above conclusions, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner computed the amount of compensation as Rs. 3,65,710/- 14. We have heard Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, and perused the record. 15. Shri Rahul Sahai submits that the statements of the owner of the vehicle in question and the parents of the deceased recorded by the investigator, Nikhil Chandra Gupta, during investigation, showed that the deceased Shakil Abbas used to do business of milk and was not employed as cleaner on the vehicle in question. 16. It is submitted that the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner erred in discarding the statements recorded by the investigator during investigation particularly when the investigator (Nikhil Chandra Gupta) was examined as a witness on behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company. 17.We have considered the submissions made by Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, and we find ourselves unable to accept the same. 18. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner in the impugned Judgment and Order has emphasized that Ravi Shanker Sharma, owner of the vehicle in question, never appeared in the case to accept or deny the factum of employment. 19. It has further been emphasized that the statements of various persons mentioned by the investigator in his Report, were not got proved by examining the said persons. 20. It has further been emphasized that there was no photograph of any person on the said statements nor was the name of the scribe of the statement was mentioned nor was the statement of the illiterate Hameedan Begum (claimant-respondent No. 5) got verified. 21. In our view, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has given cogent and valid reasons for not relying upon the statements of the owner of the vehicle in question (Ravi Shanker Sharma) and the parents of the deceased Shakil Abbas allegedly given by them to the investigator (Nikhil Chandra Gupta). 22. It is note-worthy that in his statement as a witness, the said Nikhil Chandra Gupta admitted that the owner of the vehicle in question (Ravi Shanker Sharma) and the parents of the deceased Shakil Abbas, namely, Salim Abbas and Smt. Hameedan Begum, were alive. 23. However, neither the owner of the vehicle in question nor was any of the parents examined as a witness in the Claim Case before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. 24. 23. However, neither the owner of the vehicle in question nor was any of the parents examined as a witness in the Claim Case before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. 24. Even though the investigator (Nikhil Chandra Gupta) was examined as a witness, his statement would be in the nature of hearsay as regards the contents of statements allegedly given to him by the owner of the vehicle in question (Ravi Shanker Sharma) and the parents of the vehicle in question (Saleem Abbas and Smt. Hameedan Begum) 25. The investigator (Nikhil Chandra Gupta) evidently did not have any personal knowledge in regard to the occupation of the deceased Shakil Abbas. 26. In view of the above, we are of the view that the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner did not commit any error in discarding the statements of the owner of the vehicle in question (Ravi Shanker Sharma) and the parents of the deceased Shakil Abbas, namely, Saleem Abbas and Smt. Hameedan Begum, allegedly given to the investigator (Nikhil Chandra Gupta). 27. The finding recorded by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner regarding injuries caused to the said Shakil Abbas by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in his death during treatment, are based on consideration of the material on record. No illegality or perversity has been shown in the findings recorded by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. 28. In view of the above discussion, it is evident that no Substantial Question of Law is involved in the present Appeal. The Appeal, therefore, lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 29. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. ——————