JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The Insurer/appellant herein stands aggrieved by the pronouncement recorded by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Shimla, while exercising powers of ‘Commissioner’ under the employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, wherefrom it for hence begetting its reversal, has instituted the instant appeal. 2. Today this Court upon hearing counsel for the contesting parties has framed the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law, for pronouncing an adjudication thereon:- “Whether their exists a subsisting contract interse the deceased workman and the employer the owner of the offending vehicle.” 3. The learned counsel for the insurance company submits that for want of the owner of the offending vehicle stepping into the witness box also hence his not testifying that he had prior to the date of accident employed the deceased as a driver upon the ill-fated vehicle also his not hence testifying that at the relevant time he was manning the drivers’ seat of the relevant vehicle, ought to have constrained the learned Commissioner concerned to not impute credence to the testifications in respect thereto rendered by the claimants. He submits that the deposition of the owner of the relevant vehicle, constituted the best evidence for returning findings upon the relevant issues whereas its not surging-forth, renders an inference that the affirmative findings recorded by the learned Commissioner with respect to a contract of employment existing interse the deceased and the relevant owner of the offending vehicle hence warranting interference. He further submits that hence also the claimants not proving the fact of demise of the deceased workman occurring during the course of his, at the time contemporaneous to the ill-fated mishap involving the offending vehicle concerned taking place hence performing employment under the relevant owner, thereupon renders the claim petition to suffer dismissal. However, the effect of the aforesaid submission, is effaced, as, even if the claimants had not led into the witness box, the owner of the vehicle yet the insurer was not incapacitated to take appropriate steps for enjoining the learned Commissioner, for summons being ordered to be issued upon the owner of the vehicle, for facilitating his stepping into the witness box. Absence on the part of insurer, to, at the earliest take the apposite steps, contrarily constrains this Court to conclude that an adverse inference is drawable against the insurer, that hence it has deliberately omitted to adduce the best evidence in respect to the relevant issue, its fearing its eruption would not hold leanings vis.a.vis it. 4. Be that as it may, the effect of the aforesaid submission, is also effaced, by the fact of RW-2 who is the witness of the Insurance Company, in his cross-examination, copy whereof has been placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the insurer, communicating that the deceased workman at the relevant time was manning the drivers’ seat of the relevant offending vehicle. Consequently, it is befitting to conclude that the deceased was engaged, as a driver upon the relevant vehicle, by its owner. In sequel, it is to be concluded that hence there exists an evident contract of employment inter se the deceased and the owner of the offending vehicle also it is to be concluded that the demise of the deceased, occurred during the course of his performing his apposite employment under the owner of the offending vehicle. I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned Commissioner, which is maintained and affirmed. No costs. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.