Sureshwar Thakur, J. The Insurer/appellant herein stands aggrieved by the apposite pronouncement recorded by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum- Commissioner Employee’s Compensation Barsar, District Hamirpur, wherefrom it for reversing the apposite verdict has instituted the instant appeal herebefore. 2. This Court admitted the instant appeal on 11.3.2014 on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- (a) “Whether the impugned award against the appellant is sustainable in the face of the fact that there was no employer-employee relationship between the deceased (Karam Chand) and owner of the vehicle in question and the insured (Ms. Rishika), whom alone appellant had undertaken to indemnify under the contract of insurance. (b) Whether the impugned award against the appellant is sustainable in the face of specific admissions on the part of respondents No. 1 and 2 in the claim petition that deceased Sh. Karam Chand was employed with respondent No.3 Sh. Chander Shekher, whom the appellant had never undertaken to indemnify and with whom appellant had no privity of contract? (c) Whether impugned award is a result of collusion between respondents No. 1 and 2 on one hand and respondent No.4 on the other (who intentionally chose not to contest the claim petition). (d) Whether the impugned award can be sustained in view of the violation of provisions of Section 4(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923?” 3. The learned counsel for the insurer has with vigour alluded to the pleadings comprised in the apposite claim petition wherewithin the claimants voice qua their predecessor-in-interest standing employed as a driver under respondent No.1, on the relevant ill-fated vehicle, driver seats whereof stood manned by him at the time contemporaneous to the occurrence of the ill-fated mishap. He hence contends qua the aforesaid pointed pleading constituting an estoppel against the claimants especially when they tantamount qua theirs acquiescing qua the aforesaid factum whereupon he contends with there existing no privity of contract inter se the insurer vis-a-vis respondent No.1 renders the insurer to be unamenable for any order standing pronounced upon it, qua its indemnifying the claimants qua the compensation amount as stands adjudged vis-a-vis them. However, the aforesaid submission does not warrant its standing accepted significantly when any ouster thereupon of the claim petition preferred by the claimants also stricto sensu thereupon discarding oral evidence contrary thereto voiced by RW-1 wherein he testified qua predecessor in interest of the claimants at the relevant time holding the apposite employment under respondent No.4, would be grossly unjustifiable conspicuously, when it would render redundant the effect of documentary evidence contradictory thereto wherewithin pronouncements occur whereupon the effect if any, as occurs in the claim petition qua the facet of deceased holding employment under respondent No.1, hence stands countervailed. The learned counsel for the insurance, has not contested the factum qua the relevant vehicle under an agreement recorded on 15.06.2001 standing thereupon transferred from Rishika to Dalip. Nonetheless even in pursuance to an agreement standing recorded on 15.06.2001 inter se Rishika with Dalip Kumar, no insurance cover qua the relevant vehicle stood executed inter se respondent No.4 vis-a-vis the insurance company. Contrarily, as manifested by Ext.R-2 the apposite insurance cover with respect to the relevant vehicle remained alive upto 19/10/2003 vis.a.vis Rishika. The aforesaid factum of the insurance cover embodied in Ext.R-2 thereupto remaining alive inter se Rishika vis-a-vis insurer also unfolds qua at the time contemporaneous to the ill-fated mishap dehors the transfer of the relevant vehicle occurring from Rishika to Dalip yet no valid contract of insurance in sequel thereto standing entered inter se the Insurer vis-a-vis respondent No.4. It apparently surfaces qua Dalip Kumar, who under an agreement recorded on 15.06.2001 purchased the relevant vehicle from Rishika, omitted to, within the ambit of the peremptory mandate of sub section 2 of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinbelow: “The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance.” apply to the insurer, for the apposite certificate of insurance standing transferred to him from its hitherto owner Rishika. Consequently, the omission of respondent No.4 to beget compliance with the peremptory mandate of sub section 2 of Section 157 prods this Court to conclude qua the relevant transferee thereupon not holding any leverage to fasten any liability upon the insurer, for indemnifying him qua the compensation amount as stands hereafter determined by this Court, significantly when he failed to entail upon the insurance company to make the necessary changes in the apposite certificate of insurance whereupon with no valid or subsisting contract of insurance hence ever coming into existence inter se Dalip Kumar vis-a-vis the insurance company, concomitantly, begets an inference qua their obviously occurring no privity of contract inter se Dalip Kumar with the insurance company, whereupon any fastening of liability qua defrayment of compensation amount upon the insurer is grossly untenable. 4. However, before proceeding to adjudicate qua whether the apposite liability qua defrayment of compensation amount, determined by the learned Commissioner under the impugned award, is after reversal of the impugned verdict herebefore amenable to warrant its devolution upon respondent No.1 or upon respondent No.4 conspicuously when the claimants voiced in the apposite claim petition qua deceased standing engaged as a driver in the relevant vehicle by respondent No.1, it is imperative to allude to the testification of PW-1 wherein he has voiced with firm equivocality qua his predecessor in interest, at the time contemporaneous to the occurrence of the ill-fated mishap, performing his employment as a driver on the ill-fated vehicle. Though, in his testification he has omitted to in tandem with the averments constituted in the apposite petition divulge therein the respondent No. 1 to be the employer of his deceased son Karam Chand whereupon also with the learned counsel for the respondent(s) while holding him to cross-examination omitted to put any affirmative suggestions to him qua the deceased Karam Chand standing employed by respondent No.1 whereupon an inference stands filliped qua the reflections occurring in the apposite petition qua deceased Karam Chand performing his relevant employment under RW-1 hence not warranting any imputation of any relevance thereto nor theirs estopping the petitioners to claim compensation from respondent No.4 latter whereof had under an agreement purchased the relevant vehicle from its previous owner. Also with PW-1 in his deposition not underscoring with specificity the name of the employer of his deceased son does not hence stir any inference qua the deposition of RW-4 qua the relevant facet of deceased Karam Chand holding employment under respondent No.4 warranting dis-imputation of credence nor it would be apt to thereupon conclude qua the deposition of PW-1 qua the relevant facet while standing rendered beyond pleadings hence warranting its standing discarded, imperatively when RW-4 the brother of respondent No.1 in his affidavit embodied in Ext.RW-1/A has made underscorings therein qua at the relevant time, his brother respondent No.4 soliciting as and when required the services of deceased Karam Chand for the relevant purpose of driving the ill- fated vehicle. The testification of Chandershekhar qua the factum of his brother Dalip Kumar intermittently soliciting the services of deceased Karam Chand to drive the relevant vehicle remains unconcerted thereat to be bereft of its efficacy rather the counsels for the respondents while holding respondent No.1 to cross-examination therein merely put a stray disaffirmative suggestion to him qua deceased Karam Chand not performing any employment in the relevant vehicle, suggestion whereof evinced a compatible disaffirmative response from RW-1 wherefrom it may stand tentatively concluded qua the respondent No.1 belying his deposition existing in his examination in chief qua his brother intermittently soliciting the services of deceased Karam Chand for performing the avocation of a driver on the ill-fated accident, contrarily thereupon no conclusion can stand reared qua at the relevant time of occurrence the deceased not manning the driver’s seat of the relevant vehicle significantly when the deposition occurring in the examination in chief of RW-1 qua respondent No.4 purchasing the relevant vehicle from Rishika remains unbelied qua the apposite factum rather sinewed proof qua the relevant factum also stands marshalled from the relevant agreement whereunder RW-4 purchased the relevant vehicle from Rishika significantly when its execution remained unconcerted to stand belied. Moreover with the F.I.R. lodged qua the occurrence disclosing qua deceased Karam Chand manning the drivers’ seat of the relevant vehicle, constrains a conclusion qua thereupon its standing firmly proven qua deceased Karam Chand standing employed as a driver by respondent No.4 in the ill-fated vehicle also thereupon for reiteration the effect of acquiescence besides admissions constituted in the claim petition qua deceased Karam Chand standing employed by respondent No.1 also hence suffer complete effacement. 5. 5. While determining the quantum of compensation amount, it is imperative to refer to the testimony of PW-1 wherein he has articulated qua his deceased son, drawing wages constituted in a sum of Rs.3,000/- per mensem also his drawing daily expenses quantified at Rs.100/-. Though the aforesaid factum stands contradicted by RW-1, who contrarily has deposed qua deceased Karam Chand standing casually employed by respondent No. 4, however, thereupon alone the testimony of PW-1 cannot suffer emasculation significantly when the learned counsel appearing for the insurance while holding him to cross-examination has though purveyed to him suggestions holding communications qua his deceased son, standing casually engaged by respondent No. 4, suggestion whereof sequelled an answer in the negative. Importantly also the best evidence to underscore qua the testimony of PW-1 holding worth for settling the controversy qua deceased Karam Chand holding a casual employment as a driver in the ill-fated vehicle under respondent No. 4 stood comprised in respondent No.4 on his stepping into the witness box, his making apposite pronouncements qua the relevant facet. However, Dalip Kumar did not step into the witness box nor the insurance besides respondent No.1 concerted to elicit his standing requisitioned as a witness for hence setting at rest the controversy qua deceased Karam Chand performing a casual employment under him or his holding a regular employment under him wherefrom he drew Rs.100 per diem besides a salary of Rs.3000/- per mensem. For omission on the part of either respondent No.1 or of the insurance to solicit through the apposite mode the presence before the learned Commissioner of respondent No.4 for thereupon facilitating his rendering a testimony for resting the aforesaid controversy hence nails a conclusion qua respondent No.4 who stood proceeded against ex-parte thereupon concerting to smother the factum of the manner of his employing deceased Karam Chand whereupon also an adverse inference is drawable against respondent No.4 wherefrom it is apt to conclude qua the deposition of PW-1 qua his deceased son holding employment under respondent No.4 on a salary of Rs.3000/- per mensem holding credence. Consequently, the sums aforesaid whereupon the apt statutory principle stood applied by the learned Commissioner does not warrant any interference. Consequently, the sums aforesaid whereupon the apt statutory principle stood applied by the learned Commissioner does not warrant any interference. However, for the reasons aforesaid when respondent No.4 did not execute any valid contract of insurance qua the relevant vehicle with the insurer thereupon the fastening of liability qua defrayment of compensation amount adjudged qua the claimants under the impugned verdict, upon the insurer, is grossly unwarranted. In sequel thereto the liability to defray the apposite compensation amount determined under the impugned verdict stands fastened upon respondent No.4. Also the fastening of liability of interest on compensation amount upon the insurer is concomitantly untenable thereupon the liability of interest at the rate of 12% per annum levied on a sum of Rs.3,14,880/- determined as compensation amount by the learned Commissioner qua the claimants, shall also be borne by respondent No.4. Moreover, with the respondent No.4 begetting infraction of the mandate Section 4-A of the Workmens’ Compensation Act, he is also directed to pay penalty qua the claimants comprised in a sum of Rs.1 lacs. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. Substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the Insurance Company and against respondent No.4.