JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands instituted by the aggrieved purported employer of deceased workman Inder Singh. 2. Upon this Court, at, the pre admission stage hearing the learned counsel on either side, it is hence deemed fit to frame the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law, for meteing an answer thereto. 1. Whether the mere purchaser of vehicle in the absence of any documentary proof, can a person be declared as owner? 2. Whether in the absence of registration certificate (RC), person can be declared owner of vehicle? Thereafter the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties consensually convey qua their readiness to address arguments thereupon. On the previous date when the appeal was heard the learned counsel for the appellant had made a vociferous submission qua with the learned MACT, Bilaspur while pronouncing an award upon MAC No. 10/2 of 2009, its proceeding to fasten the apposite liability qua the compensation amount determined thereunder qua an injured occupying the offending vehicle, upon the registered owner of the relevant vehicle, thereupon this Court also likewise fastening the apposite liability qua compensation determined under the impugned award upon the relevant registered owner of the vehicle. Inder Singh, who stood impleaded as respondent No.4 in MAC No. 10/2 of 2009, has proceeded to assail the apposite award pronounced by the learned MACT, by instituting herebefore FAO No. 164 of 2015. The learned MACT under its apposite award, had fastened upon Inder Singh the apposite liability qua the compensation amount determined thereunder, on anchorage of his name standing entered as owner of the offending vehicle in the apposite RC, anchorage whereof galvanized force from the apposite verdicts recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court wherewithin a mandate is held qua the Registered owner of the relevant vehicle alone warranting fastening of liability of compensation determined by the MACT concerned. The aforesaid findings rendered by the learned MACT concerned upon the apposite claim petition preferred therebefore by an injured/occupant of the relevant vehicle, cannot ipso facto constrain this court to dispel the tenacity of an affidavit sworn by Jagdish appellant herein, embodied in Mark-RW-1/C, affidavit whereof exists on file of Workmen’s Compensation Petition No. 17/2 of 2011/2007/225/2013 wherein he has made a pointed recital qua his purchasing the relevant vehicle from Nand Lal. The relevant paragraph 2 of the affidavit held in Mark-RW-1/C portrays qua the relevant vehicle standing purchased on 29.10.2006 by the appellant herein whereas the accident with respect to the relevant vehicle whereon the deceased workman stood engaged as a driver by his purported employer occurred on 7.12.2006. In sequel thereof, with the illfated mishap involving the relevant vehicle whereon the deceased workman stood engaged as a driver evidently occurring subsequent to the execution of an affidavit embodied in Mark-RW-1/C wherewithin the appellant herein accepts the factum of his making purchase of the relevant vehicle from one Sh. Nand Lal. Hereat in coagulation thereof the tenacity of the submission addressed here before by the learned counsel for the appellant qua the apposite liability of compensation determined by the learned Commissioner under the impugned award warranting its standing fastened only upon the Registered owner stands enjoined to be tested whereupon an allusion to the relevant provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, existing in Section 3(1) thereof, is imperative, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: 3. Employer’s liability for compensation :- (1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: 3. An incisive reading of the hereinabove extracted relevant provisions of Section 3(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act unveil qua the employer of the workman concerned being amenable to pay compensation to the workman concerned, if the relevant injury stands suffered by the workman concerned during the course of his performing employment under his employer. Obviously, the sine qua non for fastening the apposite liability qua the compensation amount determined by the learned Commissioner under the Act, is evident existence of an express or an implied contract of employment subsisting at the relevant time inter se the workman concerned vis.a.vis his employer. Obviously, the sine qua non for fastening the apposite liability qua the compensation amount determined by the learned Commissioner under the Act, is evident existence of an express or an implied contract of employment subsisting at the relevant time inter se the workman concerned vis.a.vis his employer. Evidence qua a contract of employment aforesaid existing interse the workman vis-a-vis his employer, may upsurge dehors the vehicle concerned standing not owned by the person/entity whereunder the workman concerned renders his apposite employment conspicuously when no apposite statutory provisions mandate qua the indispensable statutory norm for fastening liability upon an employer of an injured/disabled or deceased workman standing rested qua apart from satiation standing begotten qua the statutory tenet of an express or implied contract of employment subsisting inter se them, the workman concerned also establishing qua his employer also holding the apposite RC with respect to the relevant vehicle. Since the aforesaid statutory tenet remains un-enunciated in the Act, any insistence upon the workman concerned qua his establishing qua his employer holding the apposite RC qua the relevant vehicle, would visibly travel beyond the domain of statutory provisions. Be that as it may, extantly, explicit besides express evidence qua the prima donna factum probandum aforesaid stands unveiled in Mark-RW-1/C, exhibit whereof holds therewithin an affidavit sworn by the appellant herein qua his at the relevant time of the mishap involving the offending vehicle his purchasing it from one from Nand Lal. Since the execution of Mark-RW- 1/C stands undisputed nor also with Jagdish concerting to belie the efficacy of the recitals embodied therein especially the one qua his at the time contemporaneous to the occurrence of the ill fated mishap, hence holding possession of the relevant vehicle thereupon with his also holding the apposite capacity to hold a valid possession of the relevant vehicle dehors his name remaining unsubstituted as its owner in the apposite RC also thereupon he held the befitting apposite capacity to engage a driver thereon. In sequel thereto with the oral depositions pronouncing qua the deceased workman at the relevant time performing his apposite employment in the relevant vehicle under respondent No.4 also thereupon attain befitting sinew/probative worth for in concluding qua theirs making unfoldings in consonance with the relevant statutory tenet embodied in Section 3(1) of the Act besides obviously the claimants also proving the factum of their predecessor-in-interest standing engaged as a driver in the relevant vehicle by respondent No.4. In summa, the factum of the name of the appellant herein standing not in the apposite RC hence substituted in place of its hitherto owner, would not, constitute evidence qua no relationship of employer or employee existing inter- se the appellant herein vis-à-vis the deceased workman. In summa, the factum of the name of the appellant herein standing not in the apposite RC hence substituted in place of its hitherto owner, would not, constitute evidence qua no relationship of employer or employee existing inter- se the appellant herein vis-à-vis the deceased workman. Significantly also with the provisions of sub section (1) of Section-3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act enjoining adduction of evidence before the learned Commissioner in portrayal of a contract of employment at the relevant time existing inter-se the workman concerned vis-à-vis his employer, adduction of affirmative evidence whereon hence satiating, the solitary indispensable statutory cannon for fastening the apposite liability qua compensation amount determined under the Act upon the employer concerned, thereupon the fastening of any liability of compensation upon the registered owner of vehicle is per se unbefitting, conspicuously when a claim petition constituted before the MACT concerned stands enjoined to be decided in consonance with the statutory provisions held in the Motor Vehicles Act wherewithin no mandate alike the mandate held in the Workmen’s Compensation Act stands encapsulated qua the preponderant statutory tenet enjoining satiation by clinching evidence standing adduced thereon for hence aptly fastening liability of compensation upon the employer of the workman concerned standing anvilled upon existence of a contract of employment inter se both, whereas hereat evidence making evincings qua existence of a contract of employment, evidence whereof is alone for reiteration amenable for imputation of credence thereon dehors respondent No. 4 not standing recorded in the apposite RC to be the owner of the relevant vehicle, for thereupon the apposite liability standing fastened upon the relevant employer, contrarily the apposite claim petition constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act before the MACT concerned does not for fastening the apposite liability upon the insurer of the relevant vehicle or upon its owner statutorily warrant adduction of any evidence in display of any contract of employment existing inter se the claimants vis.a.vis the owner of the relevant vehicle. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein also contended with much vigor qua with one Nand Lal securing the release of the relevant vehicle from the JMIC concerned, hence constituting evidence for succoring an inference qua no subsisting relationship of employer and employee occurring inter-se the deceased workman concerned vis-à-vis respondent No.4. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein also contended with much vigor qua with one Nand Lal securing the release of the relevant vehicle from the JMIC concerned, hence constituting evidence for succoring an inference qua no subsisting relationship of employer and employee occurring inter-se the deceased workman concerned vis-à-vis respondent No.4. However, even if the registered owner, had obtained from the Court concerned, the release of the relevant vehicle, factum thereof may not oust any inference qua no subsisting relationship of employer and employee ever coming into being inter-se the deceased workman concerned vis-à-vis respondent No.4, relationship whereof stands abundantly marked by Mark-RW1/A, execution whereof remains unbelied also stands marked by unrebutted oral evidence in corroboration thereof. Moreso, the learned Magistrate concerned who had on an application comprised in Ext.RX ordered for the relevant vehicle standing released qua Inder Singh, has recorded its apposite pronouncement, in the wake of Inder Singh, the registered owner of the vehicle not impleading Jagdish as a party thereto also the apposite application of release preferred before the Magistrate concerned whereon the later proceeded to order its release, holds the signatures of Nand Lal as special power of attorney of its registered owner, owner whereof stands recited in Mark-RW1/C to be the person wherefrom through his SPA the appellant herein made a purchase of the relevant vehicle. It hence appears qua given the absence of an apposite substitution in the RC qua the relevant vehicle, the aforesaid Nand Lal, who stood constituted under Mark-RW1/B by its registered owner to be his special power of attorney also when the registered owner held the entitlement to claim its release especially when his name in the RC remained alive, contrarily with the appellant herein not standing substituted in the apposite RC in place of the hitherto owner of the relevant vehicle nor his standing constituted by its registered owner as his special power of attorney thereupon when he hence did not hold any entitlement to proceed to stake a claim for its release from the Magistrate concerned, hence proceeded to stake a claim for its release yet thereupon it would not constrain any inference from this Court qua its release from the Court concerned ousting the aforesaid inference qua his at the relevant time engaging the deceased workman concerned as a driver upon the relevant vehicle prominently when emphatic/oral evidence makes a vivid display qua the aforesaid factum. Furthermore, galvanized force qua satiation qua the relevant statutory parameters standing satiated, stands acquired, by the factum of Nand Lal wherefrom the appellant herein had made a purchase of the relevant vehicle standing impleaded as a party in the apposite petition constituted under the Act yet Nand Lal who stood impleaded as respondent No.4, in his deposition recorded before the Commissioner proves Mark-RW-1/C also in his deposition he has made underscorings therein qua the deceased workman concerned standing employed by Jagdish, wherefrom it is inevitable to infer qua his accepting the factum qua the relevant vehicle at the relevant time dehors his applying for its release before the Magistrate concerned also hence not benumbing the factum qua a subsisting contract of employer and employee which alone constitutes the paramount factum for fastening liability of compensation under the Act coming into existence inter se the deceased workman vis.a.vis respondent No.4. Accordingly, substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant. Appeal dismissed. Impugned award is affirmed.