Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Aggrieved by award dated 5.9.2005, passed by learned Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, Sub-Division, Shimla (Rural), District Shimla in an application under Section 4 and 4(A) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act registered as case No.02/2005 is in appeal before this Court. 2. Respondent No.1, hereinafter referred to as the applicant-claimant, is mother of deceased Narender Kumar. In the application she filed for the award of compensation against the owner of ill-fated vehicle i.e. truck No.HP51-1244, respondent No.2, hereinafter referred to as respondent No.1, and appellant, hereinafter referred to as respondent No.2- insurer. It is averred that her deceased son Narender Kumar died in the accident of truck No.HP51-1244 on 16.3.2005 at Jalog, Tehsil Suni, while driving the same. According to her, she was dependent upon the earning of deceased Narender Kumar, who was employed as driver by respondent No.1 with ill-fated truck on payment of Rs. 6,000/- per month as salary. The accident was reported to the Police of Police Station, Dhalli. The deceased at the time of his death was 22 years of age. 3. The first respondent, in reply to the application had submitted in preliminary that at the time of accident the vehicle was duly insured with insurer-respondent No.2, therefore, the liability, if any, to pay compensation to the applicant-claimant was of the said respondent. It was further averred that the vehicle was being driven by an authorized person, holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. There being no breach of the contract of insurance, on this score also it is respondent No.2-Insurer, who is liable to pay the compensation. 4. The contents of paras 1 and 2 of the applications were denied for want of knowledge and the petitioner was called upon to produce the documentary proof regarding the averments made therein. No reply was intended to be given to the contents of paras 3 and 4 of the application being matter of record. It was, however, reiterated that the liability to pay the compensation, if any, was that of respondent No.2. 5. The insurer-respondent No.2, has also pleaded in preliminary that as per the FIR, deceased was traveling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger having no express or implied authority to drive the same. It was, however, reiterated that the liability to pay the compensation, if any, was that of respondent No.2. 5. The insurer-respondent No.2, has also pleaded in preliminary that as per the FIR, deceased was traveling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger having no express or implied authority to drive the same. Without admitting the liability to pay the compensation, it was submitted that since the deceased was not holding a valid and effective driving licence; the insurer-respondent No.2 was not liable to pay the compensation. The deceased was brother of respondent No.1 and as such the mother had filed the claim petition to obtain compensation on false grounds. The vehicle was being driven in contravention of the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act and there being breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insurer respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. The application as constituted and instituted is stated to be neither competent nor maintainable nor was the applicant entitled to claim any damages. The application was also claimed to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 6. On merits also, the insurer-respondent No.2 had denied that the deceased was employed as driver by respondent No.1 on payment of Rs.6000/- per month as salary to him. He rather was travelling as gratuitous passenger in the ill-fated vehicle, hence the applicant is not entitled to award of any compensation. 7. On such pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1. Whether the application is maintainable in the present form? OPP 2. Whether the vehicle is insured with the respondent No.2? OPR-1 3. Whether the deceased is covered under the definition of workman? OPP 4. Whether the deceased was traveling in the vehicle as a gratuitous passenger? OPR-2 5. Whether the deceased was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-2 6. Whether the petition is being filed in collusion with the respondent No.1. ? OPR-2 7. Whether the vehicle was being plied in contravention of Motor Vehicle Act? OPR-2 8. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR-2 9. Relief. 8. Learned Commissioner, on appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties on both sides, has concluded that the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Act and died during the course of his employment while driving the ill-fated truck. OPR-2 8. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR-2 9. Relief. 8. Learned Commissioner, on appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties on both sides, has concluded that the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Act and died during the course of his employment while driving the ill-fated truck. The application as such was held to be maintainable. Issues No.4 and 5 were answered against the insurer while arriving at a conclusion that the deceased was not travelling in the capacity of a gratuitous passenger in the ill-fated truck and rather was driving the same and holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same. The objections that the application was filed in collusion with respondent No.1 and that the truck was being plied in contravention of the provisions contained under Motor Vehicles Act and that the application was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, were not acceded to while answering issues No.6 to 8 against insurer-respondent No.2. Consequently, the application was allowed and a sum of Rs.4,42,740/- was awarded as compensation by selecting 221.37 as the relevant factor whereas 50% of the wages of the deceased i.e. Rs.2,000/- per month. Besides a sum of Rs.1,26,180/- was also awarded as interest on the amount of compensation so worked out. Respondent No.2 was held liable to pay the entire amount to the applicant-claimant. 9. The insurer-respondent No.2 has assailed the legality and validity of the impugned award on the grounds inter alia that the findings recorded by learned Commissioner below on issues No.3 to 6 are erroneous and contrary to the facts proved on record. The owner of the vehicle, in reply to the application, had nowhere submitted that deceased was either employed by him as driver in the vehicle or the relationship of employer and employee was in existence between them. In reply to the application, he never averred that the salary of the deceased was Rs.6000/- per month. The only case as set-up in the reply by the said respondent was that the vehicle was being driven by an authorized (wrongly mentioned as unauthorized) person holding a valid driving licence to drive the same. He has nowhere stated that the deceased was employed as driver with ill-fated truck. 10. The contents of paras 1 and 2 of the application for award of claim were denied for want of knowledge. He has nowhere stated that the deceased was employed as driver with ill-fated truck. 10. The contents of paras 1 and 2 of the application for award of claim were denied for want of knowledge. Neither any record regarding payment of salary produced nor any such record qua appointment of the deceased as driver produced in evidence. Learned Commissioner, therefore, erroneously concluded that the salary of the deceased was Rs.5,000/- per month. The findings so recorded are neither supported by the petition nor from the reply thereto filed on behalf of insured respondent No.1. The deceased as per the evidence available on record was rather travelling in the illfated truck in the capacity of a gratuitous passenger. He was real brother of respondent No.1 and the claim petition was filed by the applicant in collusion with respondent No.1. The insurer-respondent No.2, therefore, could have not been saddled with the liability to pay the compensation. 11. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether the respondent No.1 has proved on the record that the deceased was employed as a driver by respondent No.2 in the absence of any evidence on the record and whether any evidence in the absence of any pleadings could be looked into by the Commissioner below? (b) Whether the Commissioner below is right in holding the salary of the deceased to be Rs.5,000.00 per month without the production of the records regarding the same by respondent No.2 and in view of his specific denial in the reply filed on his behalf? (c) Whether the Commissioner below has rightly decided issues No.3, 4 and 7 in favour of the claimants in view of the allegations made in the application as well as the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2? 12. Mr. G.C. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs. Meera Devi, Advocate has strenuously contended that the relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and first respondent is not at all proved, therefore, neither the deceased could have been treated as a workman nor his salary taken as Rs.5000/- per month. In reply to the claim petition the insured-respondent No.1 has not admitted that the deceased was employed by him as driver on payment of Rs.6,000/- as salary per month and rather the averments to this effect in the application have been denied for want of knowledge. In reply to the claim petition the insured-respondent No.1 has not admitted that the deceased was employed by him as driver on payment of Rs.6,000/- as salary per month and rather the averments to this effect in the application have been denied for want of knowledge. The testimony of the insured-respondent No.1 beyond the pleadings, according to Mr. Gupta, could have not been taken into consideration. 13. On the other hand, Shri G.S. Rathore, Advocate learned counsel representing the insured respondent No.1 has urged that the insured while in the witness box has proved that the deceased was employed by him as driver with ill-fated truck and his salary was Rs.5,000/- per month. According to Mr. Rathore, appointment of his own brother as driver is not legally barred. It has thus been urged that learned Commissioner below on appreciation of the evidence in its right perspective has rightly held the insurer-respondent No.2 liable to indemnify the insured. 14. Shri Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate learned counsel representing the applicant-claimant has submitted that the contents of reply to the application filed by first respondent manifestly reveals that he has not denied the engagement of the deceased as driver with ill-fated truck and rather while admitting the averments in paras 3 and 4 of the application being matter of record. It is implied that respondent No.1 has admitted that the deceased was employed as driver with the ill-fated truck. It has also been urged that the statement of insured respondent No.1 while in the witness-box, leaves no manner of doubt qua engagement of the deceased as driver with the ill-fated truck on payment of salary. Therefore, according to learned counsel, no other and further evidence was required to form an opinion that the deceased was a workman and died during the course of his employment. It has thus been urged by Mr. Singh, that learned Commissioner below has not committed any illegality and irregularity in allowing the claim petition and awarding a sum of Rs.4,42,740/- as compensation to the applicant claimant. 15. Although the appeal has been admitted on three substantial questions of law, yet Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate has restricted his claim mainly on substantial question of law at (a) above. 16. 15. Although the appeal has been admitted on three substantial questions of law, yet Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate has restricted his claim mainly on substantial question of law at (a) above. 16. True it is that in reply to the claim petition, respondent No.1 has not specifically admitted the averments in para 2 of the claim petition that the deceased was employed as driver with ill-fated truck on payment of Rs.6000/- as salary per month. He, however, has even not denied also that the deceased was not employed by him as driver with illfated truck. The contentions in para 4 of the petition that the deceased was 22 years of age and the applicant was dependent upon him have, however, been admitted by the said respondent being matter of record. Meaning thereby that it is manifest and implied from the reply to the application filed on behalf of first respondent that he had engaged the deceased as driver with the ill-fated truck. Not only this, but while in the witness-box the applicant has categorically stated that the deceased was working as driver with the truck belonging to respondent No.1 and his wages was Rs.6,000/- per month. She has tendered the postmortem report Ex.PW-11/B and the age certificate Ex.PW-11/C as well as death certificate Ex.PW-11/D in her statement. In her cross-examination, she even has proved the driving licence Ex.RX. She has been cross-examined on behalf of the insurer-respondent No.2, however, her testimony that the deceased was working as driver with ill-fated truck and died during the course of employment remained un-shattered because the suggestions to the contrary put to her were denied being wrong. 17. Now coming to the statement of respondent No.1, he has categorically stated that deceased Narender Kumar was driving the ill-fated truck at the time of accident. He was employed as driver on seeing his driving licence Ex.RX, which, according to him, was legal and valid. The wages of the deceased, according to respondent No.1, were Rs.5,000/- per month. In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of the insurer, he tells us that the deceased was his real brother and at the time of accident the vehicle was deputed for bringing grass. The suggestions to the contrary that neither the deceased was employed by him as driver nor was he being paid Rs.6000/- per month as wages have been denied being wrong. 18. The suggestions to the contrary that neither the deceased was employed by him as driver nor was he being paid Rs.6000/- per month as wages have been denied being wrong. 18. True it is that Shri B.S. Dadwal, Administrative Officer of respondent No.2 has stated that the deceased was travelling unauthorizedly in the truck in question, however, when cross-examined, he has stated that the insurance policy nowhere prohibits the deployment of a real brother as driver of a vehicle by its owner and that the owner rather can employ any person as driver of the vehicle may be his real brother. He further tells us that in the FIR cancellation report was prepared and the same was registered against Narender Kumar, the deceased. Such evidence is, therefore, suggestive of that deceased Narender Kumar was employed by the owner of the vehicle as driver. The deceased was holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle involved in the accident. Mr. G.C. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate no doubt has emphasized that some record regarding engagement of the deceased as driver and payment of wages to him should have been produced by the insurer-respondent No.1, however, he failed to pin-point the particulars of such record. Otherwise also, in terms of the law laid down by the apex Court in T.S. Shylaja versus Oriental Insurance Company & Another, (2014) 2 SCC, 587, in the absence of the particulars of such record/ document, the sole testimony of the insured qua engagement of a person as driver on payment of salary is sufficient to conclude that the deceased was a workman and died during the course of employment. Relevant portion of this judgment reads as follows:- “11. The only reason which the High Court has given to upset the above finding of the Commissioner is that the Commissioner could not blindly accept the oral evidence without analysing the documentary evidence on record. We fail to appreciate as to what was the documentary evidence which the High Court had failed to appreciate and what was the contradiction, if any, between such documents and the version given by the witnesses examined before the Commissioner. The High Court could not have, without adverting to the documents vaguely referred to by it have upset the finding of fact which the Commissioner was entitled to record. The High Court could not have, without adverting to the documents vaguely referred to by it have upset the finding of fact which the Commissioner was entitled to record. Suffice it to say that apart from appreciation of evidence adduced before the Commissioner the High Court has neither referred to nor determined any question of law much less a substantial question of law existence whereof was a condition precedent for the maintainability of any appeal under Section 30. Inasmuch as the High Court remained oblivious of the basic requirement of law for the maintainability of an appeal before it and inasmuch as it treated the appeal to be one on facts it committed an error which needs to be corrected.” 19. It is seen that in the case supra also deceased driver was real brother of the owner of vehicle involved in the accident like in the present case before this Court. 20. No doubt, Mr. Gupta, has placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju & Others versus National Insurance Company Ltd. & Another, 2007 ACJ, 1025, where driver of the ill-fated tractor was husband of the owner, in which it has been held that in order to establish the contract of employment documentary proof and independent witnesses were required to be examined, however, in view of the ratio of the latest judgment of the apex Court in T.S. Shylaja’s case supra, and also in the given facts and circumstances of the case is of no help to the case of the appellantrespondent No.2. 21. Similarly the ratio of the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Brahmu Ram & Another versus United India Insurance Company & another, 2009(2) Shim. LC, 26, in which the judgment of the apex Court in Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju’s case supra has been relied upon, is also of no help to the case of respondent No.2-appellant. 22. If coming to the judgment again that of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Santosh Devi versus Oriental Insurance Co. & Another, 2011 (Supp.) Him. L.R 1715, the same is also distinguishable on facts. 23. 22. If coming to the judgment again that of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Santosh Devi versus Oriental Insurance Co. & Another, 2011 (Supp.) Him. L.R 1715, the same is also distinguishable on facts. 23. On the other hand, the apex Court in Om Prakash Batish versus Ranjit @ Ranbir Kaur & Others, (2008) 12, SCC, 212 has held that in the proceedings before Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure or that of the Evidence Act are not strictly applicable. The Commissioner for the purpose of arriving at the truth can rely upon the evidence produced before it. Also that the manner in which the Commissioner appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties is out of the purview of an appellate Court. Relevant extract of this judgment reads as follows:- “16. A right of appeal under the Act is provided, both to the management as also the workman. It is difficult to hold that whereas for the workman the High Court shall exercise a wider jurisdiction but in the event the employer is the appellant, its jurisdiction would be limited. The High Court unfortunately proceeded on the basis that appreciation of evidence also would give rise to a substantial question of law. 17. In a proceeding initiated under the Act the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure or of the Evidence Act are not applicable. The Commissioner could lay down his own procedures. He could, for the purpose of arriving at the truth, rely upon such documents which were produced before it.” 24. The apex Court has held so keeping in view that the Workmen’s Compensation Act is a piece of beneficial legislation and to be construed liberally to impart substantial justice to the dependants upon the victim of an accident and in a case of personal injury, to the injured-workman. 25. In view of what has been said hereinabove no question of law, what to speak of substantial questions of law as formulated, arises for adjudication in this appeal. The appeal as such is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned award is affirmed. Pending application(s) if any shall also stand disposed of. No order so as to costs.