JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal arises from the impugned verdict recorded by the learned Commissioner exercising powers under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, (for short the “Commissioner”), whereby he dismissed the application preferred there before by the claimants/appellants herein, wherein they sought grant of compensation under the Employee's Workmen Compensation Act (for short the “Act”). 2. The claimants-appellants herein, standing aggrieved by the rendition, recorded by the learned Commissioner, hence, concert to assail it, by preferring an appeal therefrom, before this Court. 3. When the appeal came up for admission, on 25.06.2014, this Court, admitted the appeal, instituted herebefore by the claimants/appellants herein, appeal whereof stands directed against the verdict recorded by the learned Commissioner, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Commissioner below as justified not to frame the proper issue especially whether the deceased was Cleaner in the vehicle and comes under the definition of Workmen's Compensation Act or not? 2. Whether the deceased who died in the accident during the course of employment was working as workman and was entitled for the compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act? 3. Whether the learned Commissioner below has misconstrued the record, evidence and statements of the witnesses and failed to appreciate the same in proper application of mind thereby causing grave injustice? Substantial questions of law No.1 to 3. 4. Deceased Sanjay Sharma, on anvil, qua the appellants/claimants, “not” proving the trite pleaded factum qua the aforesaid standing engaged as a driver in the relevant offending vehicle by its owner, who stands impleaded in the apposite petition as respondent No.2, hence, stood concluded to, not hold any subsisting contract of employment under his purported employer, whereupon, the learned Commissioner stood constrained, to dismiss the apposite claim petition. The emanation of the aforesaid conclusion was sparked, by the learned Commissioner, meteing reverence to Ex.RW3/D, exhibit whereof, constitutes the claim preferred by the owner before the Insurer, wherein, recitals occur qua the owner of the offending vehicle engaging thereon, one Chuni Lal, as its driver. Even though, the authorship of Ex. RW3/D remains unproven, nonetheless, the aforesaid infirmity gripping Ex. Even though, the authorship of Ex. RW3/D remains unproven, nonetheless, the aforesaid infirmity gripping Ex. RW3/D, would not erode the veracity of the recitals occurring therein, qua respondent No.2, at the relevant time of occurrence of the ill-fated mishap involving the offending vehicle, his engaging thereon one Chuni Lal, as its driver. Concomitantly, thereupon obviously the factum of deceased Sanjay Sharma holding a contract of employment under respondent No.2 as a driver thereon, stood also hence, displaced. The inference aforesaid, acquires enhanced fortification, from Shri Roshan Lal, the owner of the offending vehicle while stepping into the witness box as RW-1, he in his examination-in-chief, during course whereof, he tendered his affidavit bearing Ex.RW1/A, his making echoings therein qua at the relevant time, his engaging Chuni Lal, as a driver upon the offending vehicle, more so when factum thereof remains unconcerted to be shred of its efficacy, by the counsel for the appellants while holding him to cross-examination. Consequently, the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner qua hence the inability of the claimants to prove the pleaded factum of deceased Sanjay Sharma being engaged as a driver in the relevant vehicle by respondent No.2, do not hence warrant any interference. 5. Be that as it may, the parties do not wrangle qua the factum of deceased Sanjay Sharma, the predecessor-in-interest of the claimants being aboard the offending vehicle, at the crucial time whereat it rolled into a deep gorge, in sequel whereof, Sanjay Sharma, suffered his demise. The claimants, would be entitled to claim compensation from the owners also the latter would hold the apposite leverage to seek indemnification from the insurer, of the compensation amount determined upon him, under the apposite award, if evidence, surges forth in display, qua dehors, the factum of their inability to prove the pleaded factum of deceased Sanjay Sharma being engaged as a driver by its owner upon the relevant vehicle, of, his at the relevant time being engaged, in some other capacity, by the owner, upon the relevant offending vehicle, whereupon, this Court would hold of hence with a subsisting contract of employment coming into existence inter se both, thereupon, it paving way for erecting an inference, of the dismissal of the claim petition, for want of proof in respect to the pleaded factum probandum, hence, warranting interference. In disintering, the aforesaid evidence, an allusion to the deposition of the owner held in Ex.RW1/A, unfolds qua his acquiescing to the fact, qua a few days prior to the occurrence, Chuni Lal, the driver of the offending vehicle, engaging deceased Sanjay Sharma, as a cleaner thereon, engagement whereof, emanating on Chuni Lal being appositely authorized by RW-1, the owner of the offending vehicle also he echoes in Ex.RW1/A qua after Chunil Lal, engaging deceased Sanjay Sharma, as a cleaner, on the relevant offending vehicle, his intimating him of the aforesaid engagement also his intimating him qua the wages of engagement of deceased, in the aforesaid capacity being constituted in a sum of Rs.3000/- per month, wherefrom, it is befitting to conclude, of hence a contract of employment inter se deceased Sanjay Sharma vis-a-vis respondent No.2, coming into being besides in existence, though in a capacity contradistinct vis-a-vis the pleaded factum. Even though, hence, the aforesaid evidence, as surges forth, is apparently beyond pleadings, nonetheless given the uncontroverted factum of the deceased predecessor-in-interest of the claimants, being evidently engaged in the aforesaid capacity, only a few days prior to the accident involving the offending vehicle, taking place, in vehicle whereof the deceased was aboard as its cleaner, thereupon, any existence of an averment in the apposite petition qua his being engaged by respondent No.2, as a driver thereon, is construable to be an ensual of unawareness of the claimants, of the actual capacity in respect whereof deceased Sanjay Sharma, was engaged by Chuni Lal, with the consent of respondent No.2, in the offending vehicle. In aftermath, the fact as pleaded in the claim petition would not constitute, as an estoppel, for hence ousting evidence, making contradistinctive bespeakings vis-avis the pleaded capacity, in respect whereof he stood engaged by respondent No.2, in the relevant vehicle nor this Court would be precluded to therefrom draw a conclusion qua its proving the fact of coming into being inter se both, the relevant contract of employment. Conspicuously, also when the befitting capacity to depose qua the factum probandum, is held alone by the owner, whereupon, he also holds the capacity to adduce “best evidence” in respect thereof, evidence whereof he unveils, rendering hence the deposition of RW 1, to prevail upon the pleaded factum also to prevail upon the normal principle of law, qua evidence beyond pleadings hence warranting rejection. 6. 6. In aftermath, this Court concludes qua the evidence of the owner of the offending vehicle, meriting reverence rather than its standing discarded, especially when it, establishes an entrenched inference qua existence of a contract of employment coming into being inter se deceased Sanjay Sharma vis-a-vis respondent No.2. The effect of the aforesaid discarding of evidence, has sequeled the inapt consequence of the impugned award, suffering from a pervasive vice of vitiation, arising from its apparently overlooking the aforesaid germane and apt evidence, wherefrom, the trite fact of deceased Sanjay Sharma, being engaged as a cleaner by respondent No.2 upon the relevant vehicle, hence stands clinched. Consequently, all the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. 7. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned award is quashed and set aside. In sequel, the matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner, for enabling him/her to determine afresh, the compensation amount defrayable qua the applicants/claimants/appellants, decision whereof shall stand recorded by the learned Commissioner, within two months from today. The apposite liability qua the defrayment of compensation amount determined vis-a-vis the claimants, may stand fastened upon the Insurer, of the offending vehicle, subject to ascertainment qua the liability of deceased Sanjay Sharma evidently engaged as a cleaner upon the relevant vehicle, being encompassed within the domain of the relevant comprehensive insurance cover issued vis-a-vis the aforesaid offending vehicle. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.