JUDGMENT : JAVED IQBAL WANI, J. 1. Award dated 26.12.2017 passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu (for short, 'commissioner') under The Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'Act'), is being challenged by the appellant-insurance company through the medium of the instant appeal filed under the Act. 2. The case set up by the appellant in the memo of the appeal is that a claim petition came to be filed by respondent No. 1 to 5 as dependants/claimants of one Jagdev Singh (deceased) before the Commissioner having died on 26.06.2013 while slipping away from the roof of the vehicle bearing registration No. JK12-3874 being its driver. 3. It is also the case of the appellant that in response to a notice issued by the commissioner, the appellant-insurance company filed detailed objections wherein a prayer was made for dismissal of the claim petition, however, the commissioner passed the impugned award on 26.12.2017 in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 herein against the appellant-insurance company in terms whereof an amount of Rs. 5,93,040/- was awarded in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 herein with an interest of Rs. 1,89,032/- as the vehicle was held to be insured with the appellant-insurance company. 4. The appellant-insurance company has challenged the award inter-alia on the grounds that the same is against the facts and law and that the commissioner passed the same overlooking the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under and that the commissioner in the process violated provisions of sections 4, 5 and 10 of the Act and that the commissioner committed illegality while passing the award and that there had been fatal contradictions in the claim petition and the statements of the claimants regarding age as also that the evidence of the doctor led by the claimants did not justify the passing of the award. Further, the impugned award is contended to have been based on no evidence and that the respondent No. 8 while appearing as witness had claimed that he had purchased the vehicle in question from respondent No. 6 and 7 and had executed an agreement in this regard and that in such situation award could not have been passed against the appellant- insurance company as there was no contract of insurance between respondent No. 8 and the appellant-insurance company. 5. 5. The appellant in the memo of the appeal have stated following questions to be substantial questions of law:- a. Whether there would be privity of contract between appellant and the owner, particularly when the owner who had engaged a driver, is not insured with the appellant, which would make the appellant liable to make compensation. b. Whether the award passed in this case satisfy the requirement of being declared as a judgment in terms of The Employee's Compensation Act and rules framed thereunder? c. Whether the award is based upon no evidence, and otherwise perverse. d. Whether ALC Jammu had no jurisdiction to pass the award, and the award passed is a nullity? e. Whether the compensation awarded is otherwise legally justified in the fact and circumstances of the case. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Perusal of the record tends to show that on 26.06.2013 the deceased had fallen down from the roof of the vehicle in question having sustained serious injuries resulting into his death as opined in the post--mortem report. 7. Perusal of the record further tends to show that on the date of the accident the vehicle in question has been registered in the name of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 herein as per the registration certificate of the vehicle and insured with the appellant-insurance company. 8. Record further tends to show that except insurance company none of the parties to the claim petition filed reply. Perusal of the record would further demonstrate that following issues were framed for determination by the commissioner:- a. Whether the deceased "Jagdev Singh" falls under the definition of "employee" as prescribed under the provisions of The E.C. Act, 1923? O.P.P b. Whether the deceased met with an accident arising out of and during the course of his employment for n/a's no. 1-3? O.P.P c. What was the age and wages of the deceased at the time of accident? O.P.P d. Whether the vehicle in question was being piled in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? O.P.R-4 e. Relief? O.P. Parties 9. Perusal of the record would reveal that the claimants/respondents Nos. 1 to 5 proved the issues onus whereof was placed on them. O.P.P d. Whether the vehicle in question was being piled in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? O.P.R-4 e. Relief? O.P. Parties 9. Perusal of the record would reveal that the claimants/respondents Nos. 1 to 5 proved the issues onus whereof was placed on them. In so far as issue No. 4 is concerned, onus whereof was put on appellant-insurance company which had alleged before the commissioner that the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance company, the appellant-insurance company did not adduce any evidence in support of the said contention, as such, an adverse inference thereto was drawn against the appellant- insurance company by the commissioner. 10. Record further tends to show that although a plea was raised by the appellant-insurance company during the course of the arguments that the respondent No. 8 herein had appeared as a witness and had contended that the vehicle in question had been purchased by him from respondent Nos. 6 and 7 herein yet the said contention has been rightly discarded and not relied upon by the commissioner on the ground that no such plea had been raised by the appellant-insurance company in its response. Even otherwise also record does not reveal that upon coming to know about the said position the insurance company sought framing of an issue in the matter and admittedly, no issue in this regard is framed. Even otherwise also the argument of the appellant- insurance company in this behalf seems to be absurd as a victim or his dependants in case of death cannot be left in a state of uncertainty and burdened with following a trial of successive transfer of a motor vehicle which are not registered with the registering authority and even if it is assumed that the vehicle in question was sold by respondent No. 6 and 7 in favour of respondent No. 8, without there being any formal transfer of registration yet would not absolve the registered owners from their liability and consequently the insurance company-appellant herein as otherwise the purpose, object and scheme of the Act would get defeated being a welfare legislation as the Workmen's Compensation Act has been enacted for social security and is a welfare legislation with its purpose to protect the workmen. The intention of legislation as provided under the Act is to make employer/insurers of the workmen responsible against the loss caused by injury or death which might have happened while workmen have been engaged in the work. 11. The perusal of the record would reveal that the award passed is based on cogent, credible, substantial and legal evidence with no perversity therein as is alleged by the appellant-insurance company in the appeal. The award is being questioned fundamentally and primarily on the basis of disputed questions of facts which is not permissible in law under the Act while maintaining the instant appeal as the commissioner is to be the last authority of the facts under the Act. The questions formulated by the appellant styled as substantial questions of law are misconceived in view of aforesaid analysis. 12. Viewed thus, what has been observed, considered and analysed herein above, the impugned award does not call for any interference. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed. Dismissed