JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J Award dated 7.5.2008 passed by learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation (SDM), Solan in case No. 14/WC of 03 is under challenge in the present appeal. The appellant is the insurer of vehicle Mahindra Pick Up registered as HP-14-5807. The deceased Dinesh Kumar, father of minors Himanshu and Sneha, respondents No. 1 & 2 (hereinafter referred to as the petitionersclaimants) was its driver. The owner of the vehicle was respondent No. 3 Poonam Kumari (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 1). Since Dinesh Kumar has died in the accident of the vehicle occurred on 14.7.2001 near village Gaddon, Tehsil and Distt. Solan, therefore, the minor petitioners claimants through their grandfather and next friend Sh. Narain Dass have preferred the claim petition under Section 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act for grant of compensation. In view of the age of the deceased 27 years at the time of his death in the accident and his salary was Rs. 3,000/- per month, therefore, learned Commissioner below has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,22,504/- as compensation inclusive of interest @ 12% per annum against the insurer National Insurance Company, appellant herein, respondent No. 2 before learned Commissioner below. 2. Since the stand of respondent No. 2 in reply to the claim petition was that no contract of insurance was in existence between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 and also that driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question and that the vehicle was being driven without valid documents, therefore, the petitioners were stated to be not entitled to the award of compensation. The claim neither had fallen within the definition of workman nor arises during the course of employment of the deceased with respondent No. 1 as well as there being no relation of employer and employee between the deceased and the said respondent, therefore, on this score also the claim petition was sought to be dismissed. Respondent No. 2, however, has admitted the claims made in the claim petition as correct. 3. In rejoinder filed to the reply of respondent No. 2, the petitioners have reiterated the entire case as set out in the claim petition and denied the contentions to the contrary being wrong. 4. On such pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: “1. 3. In rejoinder filed to the reply of respondent No. 2, the petitioners have reiterated the entire case as set out in the claim petition and denied the contentions to the contrary being wrong. 4. On such pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: “1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, if so, to what extent and from whom? …..OPP 2. Whether the father of claimant/petitioner was employee with respondent? …..OPR 3. Relief.” 5. Learned Commissioner below after having taken on record the evidence produced by the parties on both sides and on appreciation of the same has allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,22,504/- as compensation inclusive of interest. 6. The legality and validity of the impugned award has been questioned on the grounds inter alia that the same is contrary to the facts of the case and also the law. All issues were not framed and to the contrary the findings were recorded on conjectures and surmises. The evidence qua the age of the deceased and relevant factor applied to work out the compensation has not been appreciated in its right perspective. On the other hand, learned Commissioner has recorded the findings on hypothesis, surmises and conjectures. The evidence beyond the pleadings of the petitioners has erroneously been taken into consideration. The impugned award, as such, has been sought to be quashed. Although this appeal has been admitted on 2.6.2010, yet without framing any substantial question of law. Anyhow, the substantial question(s) of law can be framed even at a later stage also. Therefore, having gone through the grounds of appeal, now the following substantial questions of law are framed: “1. Whether for want of evidence available on record qua the relations of employer and employee between respondent No. 3 and the deceased, findings to the contrary recorded by learned Commissioner below are perverse and not legally sustainable? 2. Whether on account of collusion between the claimants and the owner of the vehicle respondent No.1, no compensation could have been awarded and the petition should have been dismissed?” 7. 2. Whether on account of collusion between the claimants and the owner of the vehicle respondent No.1, no compensation could have been awarded and the petition should have been dismissed?” 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that deceased Dinesh Kumar was husband of respondent No. 1, the owner of the vehicle and there being no contract qua his deployment as driver to drive the ill fated vehicle, there exists no relationship of employer and employee between deceased and respondent No. 1. Also that she was paying Rs. 3,000/- as salary per month to the deceased is not at all proved on record. The petition, according to the learned counsel rather has been filed by the petitioners in collusion with respondent No. 1, none else but their mother. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate, learned counsel representing the petitioners-claimants has contended that the deployment of deceased Dinesh Kumar driver of respondent No. 1 is satisfactorily proved on record. He was being paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month is also established on record. There is no question of the present petition having been filed in collusion with respondent No. 1 who according to learned counsel had solemnized marriage after the death of Dinesh Kumar, the deceased driver. The minor petitioners-claimants as such are dependant upon their old grandfather Narain Dass through whom they had filed the claim petition. 9. On analyzing, the rival submissions and also the evidence available on record, there is no dispute qua the accident of the vehicle having taken place on 14.7.2001. There is again no dispute so as to vehicle was being driven by Dinesh Kumar who died in this accident. The minor petitioners are the son and daughter of deceased Dinesh Kumar. His wife was respondent No. 1 Poonam who has now solemnized marriage with someone else after his death. These facts stand substantiated from the evidence as has come on record by way of the testimony of Sh. Narain Dass (PW-1) whose name came to be reflected Mathu Ram erroneously because Mathu Ram was his father. According to PW-1 Narain Dass, deceased Dinesh Kumar was his son and used to drive the ill fated vehicle. His salary was Rs. 3,000/- per month and in addition to that a further sum of Rs. 40/- was being paid to him towards daily expenses. According to PW-1 Narain Dass, deceased Dinesh Kumar was his son and used to drive the ill fated vehicle. His salary was Rs. 3,000/- per month and in addition to that a further sum of Rs. 40/- was being paid to him towards daily expenses. His son Dinesh Kumar died in the accident of the vehicle. He has produced in evidence the copy of the FIR. Though, he has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, however, in sundry and not on material aspects of the case of the insurer, respondent No. 2. 10. PW-2 is Bhima Ram. AS per his version, he was also travelling in the ill fated vehicle at the time of accident, being the owner of the tomatoes loaded therein. The deceased Dinesh Kumar was deployed as driver by the owner of the vehicle for the last 3-4 months. The vehicle was being driven in a normal speed by the deceased. Similar is the version of PW-3 Ram Kumar. 11. The evidence produced by the petitioners as such is suggestive of that the deceased was deployed as driver by the owner of the vehicle respondent No. 1 Poonam Kumari. His salary was Rs. 3,000/- per month. In addition to that, he was also being paid daily allowance @ Rs. 40/-. 12. Now, if coming to the statement of respondent No. 1 Poonam, RW-2, she has also supported the petitioners’ case qua deceased was engaged as driver by her with the ill fated vehicle. She even had received own damages claim i.e. Rs. 23,700/- from the insurer respondent No. 2. As per her version, she had filled in the claim form in this regard. When cross-examined, it is denied that the deceased was not shown by her as paid driver in the claim form Ext. RX. Although, she admitted that against claim qua driver, the deceased was disclosed by her to be her husband encircled “red” therein. She, however, has stated that besides the salary she had also been paying him the daily allowance. The suggestion that the deceased was not a paid driver was denied being wrong. When further cross-examined on behalf of the petitioners, she has admitted that the entries in claim form Ext. RX were filled in by an employee of the insurer, respondent No. 2. It was also admitted that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 3,000/- per month in addition to Rs. When further cross-examined on behalf of the petitioners, she has admitted that the entries in claim form Ext. RX were filled in by an employee of the insurer, respondent No. 2. It was also admitted that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 3,000/- per month in addition to Rs. 40/- the daily allowance. Therefore, the close scrutiny as has come by way of the testimony of petitioners and the witnesses they examined as well as that of respondent No. 1 Poonam, the relations of employer and employee between deceased and respondent No. 1 proved therefrom. True it is that respondent No. 1 was the wife of the deceased, however, on that score, it cannot be said that she could have not engaged her husband as driver to drive the vehicle in question. This Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hima Vati & anr., decided on 19.12.2016, where real brother was employed as driver, held such arrangement as legal and valid with the observations that there is no bar to deploy brother of the owner as driver to drive the vehicle. 13. With due regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju & ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And anr., 2007 ACJ 1025, true it is that in the present case also, no contract of employment of deceased Dinesh Kumar with respondent No. 1 is established, however, there is evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of PW-1 and for that matter of PW-2 and PW-3 also that he was deployed by respondent No. 1 as driver and his salary was Rs. 3,000/- per month. Therefore, the law laid down by the apex Court in the judgment supra is distinguishable on facts. 14. The salary of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- also stands satisfactorily proved on record. There is again no controversy qua the deceased was 27 years of age at the time of his death in the accident. Learned Commissioner below, as such, has not committed any illegality or irregularity while taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month applying 213.57 relevant factor while calculating the loss suffered by the petitioners on account of untimely death of their father in the accident. Learned Commissioner below, as such, has not committed any illegality or irregularity while taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month applying 213.57 relevant factor while calculating the loss suffered by the petitioners on account of untimely death of their father in the accident. There is also no question of collusion of the minor-claimants with respondent No. 1, who no doubt was their mother, however, now solemnized marriage with someone else. 15. Being so, no legal question what to speak of substantial questions of law as formulated arise in the present appeal. On the other hand, the award under challenge is absolutely legal and valid and is hereby affirmed. 16. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application’s, if any.