JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. The Insurer being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 31.03.2012 passed in W.C.SR.No.78 of 2010 by the Labour office and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Belagavi Division-2, has filed this appeal. 2. It is the case of the claimant before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation that he was working as driver in Truck bearing Registration No.KA-22/B-0288 under the employment of respondent No.1 on a salary of Rs.200/- per day in additional to Rs.50/- towards Batta per day. On 20.11.2019, as per the directions of the 1st respondent he was driving the lorry towards Belagavi on N.H-4A, when the vehicle came near Khanapur on over bridge it met with an accident with maxi cab and lorry fell down in the ditch by the side of the road due to the said accident the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Community Health Centre, Khanapur. Thereafter, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Belagavi. Due to the accidental injuries, he has become disabled and he is not in a position to work. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy, aged 23 years and earning Rs.200/- per day and batta Rs.50/- per day. Therefore, he filed the claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the employer and the insurer. 3. In pursuance of the notice, respondent No.1 remained absent and he was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 insurer appeared before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and filed the written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. He has specifically denied that the claimant was employed by respondent No.1 and the accident occurred in the course of employment. He has contended that there is no jural relationship between the claimant and respondent No.1. Further he has also denied that the claimant has suffered disability as alleged. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation framed issues. In order to prove his contentions, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 9 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.9. The respondent No.2 has not adduced any oral evidence. However, got marked copy of policy at Ex.R.1. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs.1,99,245/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date after 30 days of the award till its realization. 5. The respondent No.2 has not adduced any oral evidence. However, got marked copy of policy at Ex.R.1. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs.1,99,245/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date after 30 days of the award till its realization. 5. The insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment has filed this appeal on the grounds that the Court below has erroneously accepted the case of the claimant that he was employed by respondent No.1 and further that the Court below has presumed and considered the disability of the claimant at 40% of the whole body though it was in respect of particular limb. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. 7. A short question which arises for consideration before this Court in this appeal is as to whether the insurer has made out grounds for setting aside the liability saddled against him or to reduce the compensation. 8. The first contention taken by the appellant/insurer is that the claimant has not proved the jural relationship of employer and employee between himself and respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 employer did not appear before the Court nor has admitted that the claimant is his employee. However, the documents produced by the claimant at Exs.P.1 to P.3 go to show that the accident occurred when the claimant was driving the lorry belonging to respondent No.1 and it has been referred that he was working as driver under respondent No.1. Under these circumstances, the material on record is sufficient to hold that there was a jural relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and respondent No.1. Therefore the contention of the insurer in this behalf cannot be accepted. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submitted that the medical evidence in the record goes to show that the claimant is suffering from disability of 40% in respect of a particular part and therefore the Court below ought to have considered 1/3rd of the disability towards whole body. 10. The learned counsel for the claimant relying on the judgment in the case of Shaikh Osmanali Chous vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another, (2018) 3 SCC 49 , submitted that this is not a substantial question of law and the same cannot be considered by this Court. 10. The learned counsel for the claimant relying on the judgment in the case of Shaikh Osmanali Chous vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another, (2018) 3 SCC 49 , submitted that this is not a substantial question of law and the same cannot be considered by this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision in paragraph No.6 of its judgment has held as follows: "6. Unfortunately, the High Court has not referred to any of these discussions while reducing the compensation to 1/3rd of what has been awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. It may be seen that an appeal before the High Court against an award of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation is only on a substantial question of law. We do not find that there was any substantial question of law raised by the Insurance Company either." 11. Therefore considering the disability of the claimant at 1/3rd of the disability of particular limb as stated in the grounds of appeal is held not as substantial question of law. As such the contention of the appellant to consider the disability at 1/3rd of the 40% cannot be accepted. Therefore, it is held that the appellant/insurer has not made out any grounds either to set aside the liability saddled against him or to reduce the compensation awarded by the trial Court. Hence, the point for consideration is answered accordingly. 12. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the concerned Court below for disbursement.