ORDER : Krushna Ram Mohapatra, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Sahoo (for A. Mohanty), learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Rimjhim Pati (for P. Ray), learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3-insurance Company. None appears for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in spite of valid service of notice. 2. In this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation's Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act'), the appellant (widow of the workman) assails the judgment and award dated 12.12.1994 passed by learned Assistant Labour Commissioner & Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Rourkela (for short, 'the Commissioner') in W.C. Case No. 4 of 1991 awarding a compensation of Rs. 88,548/- and saddling the liability to pay the compensation on respondent No. 1-the employer. 3. Although no substantial question of law has been framed in this appeal, Mr. Sahoo (for A. Mohanty), learned counsel for the appellant submits that the substantial question of law involved in this case is- "Whether liability to pay the compensation can be fastened on the owner of the motorcycle-respondent No. 2 treating him to be the employer by giving a broader interpretation to the definition of 'employer' under Section 2(e) of the Act?." 4. It is submission that since the motorcycle was validly insured with the respondent No. 3 on the date of accident, the compensation amount should have been indemnified by respondent No. 3-lnsurance Company. It is his case that the respondent No. 2 had given his motorcycle for repairing to respondent No. 1, who was a motorcycle mechanic. The deceased-Rathi Bhoi, was working as a helper under him' After repairing of the said motorcycle, when the deceased took it for a trial, it met with an accident and the deceased succumbed to the injuries. 5. Mr. Sahoo (for A. Mohanty), learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that since the deceased had taken the vehicle on trial, it is presumed that his services were hired by the owner of the motorcycle-respondent No. 2 temporarily for that purpose only. Thus, respondent No. 2 comes within the broad interpretation of 'employer' under Section 2(e) of the Act and the respondent No. 2 for that limited purpose should be considered as the employer of the deceased for the time being. 6. Thus, respondent No. 2 comes within the broad interpretation of 'employer' under Section 2(e) of the Act and the respondent No. 2 for that limited purpose should be considered as the employer of the deceased for the time being. 6. In support of his case, he relied upon in the case of Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit v. Shahjadi Begum and others, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 692 , wherein it is held as under. "5. 'The Short question which arises for consideration is as to whether the defendant Nos. 2 and 4 consequently the State should be directed to reimburse Appellant so far as the amount of compensation payable to Respondent No. 1 is concerned. 7. The Act was enacted to provide for payment by certain classes of employers to their workmen of compensation for injury by accident. The term 'Employer' has been defined in Section 2(e) of the Act in the following terms: "employer" includes anybody of persons whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and the legal representative of a deceased employer, and, when the services of a workman are temporarily lent of let on hire to another person by the person with whom the workman has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship, means' such other person while the workman is working for him; However, the term 'employee' has not been defined in the Act. The definition of employer, therefore, embraces within its fold not only a person who employs another either permanently or on temporary basis but also those who were in control of the workman temporarily-lent or let on hire to them by the person with whom the workman has entered into a contract of service. It is, therefore, a broad definition." (emphasis supplied) 8. He, therefore, submits that the case at hand is squarely covered under the broad definition of 'employer' in view of ratio of the aforesaid case law and the respondent No. 2 is an 'employer' at least for the limited purpose of achieving the object of the benevolent statute, i.e., the Act. Thus, the respondent No. 2 being an employer, should be held liable to pay the compensation awarded. The motorcycle in question was, at the time of accident, validly insured with respondent No. 3-lnsurance Company. Thus, the respondent No. 2 being an employer, should be held liable to pay the compensation awarded. The motorcycle in question was, at the time of accident, validly insured with respondent No. 3-lnsurance Company. Thus, the respondent No. 3 is liable to indemnify the insured, namely, respondent No. 2 and prays for a direction to the respondent No. 3 to discharge the liability of respondent No. 2 and pay the compensation awarded. 9. Smt. Pati (for P Ray), learned counsel for the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, on the other hand, vehemently refuted the submissions of Mr. Sahoo (for A. Mohanty) and contended that the respondent No. 2 hired the services of respondent No. 1-the mechanic, for repairing of his motorcycle and not the deceased. The deceased was admittedly working under respondent No. 1 and by no stretch of imagination it can be assumed that the deceased was an employee under respondent No. 2. As such, learned Commissioner has rightly saddled the liability on the respondent No. 1 to pay the compensation. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the deceased was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Act and respondent No. 1 was the employer the broad interpretation of the term 'employer' as interpreted in the case law (supra) does not embrace the respondent No. 2 within its fold. The respondent No. 2 had never employed the deceased either permanently or temporary basis, nor the deceased was ever under the control of the respondent No. 2 even temporarily nor the respondent No. 1 had ever lent on hire the services of the deceased to the respondent No. 2 at any point of time. Thus, the respondent No. 2 can never be treated as an employer qua the deceased. As such, he is not liable to pay the compensation 11. In that view of the matter, the appeal merits no consideration and the substantial question of law is answered against the appellant. It is however, open to the claimant-appellant to approach the competent forum by filing appropriate application for realization of the compensation amount. 12. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 13. L.C.R. be sent back immediately