JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant-opposite party No.2 under Section 30 of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 assailing the order in EC No.271 of 2015, dated 20.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad. 2. Respondent No.1 is the applicant, Respondent No.2 is the opposite party No.1, and the appellant is the opposite party No.2 in E.C.No.271 of 2015. 3. Respondent No.1-applicant has filed claim application stating that he was employed with the respondent No.2–opposite party No.1 as labourer on DCM bearing No.AP 21 TT 0044 and on 01.08.2015 he was on duty as a labourer along with other labourers were proceeding on DCM vehicle from Shadnagar towards Allagadda and on their way at about 1.30 hours when they reached Palem Village on NH-44 the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 21X 5218 has taken ‘U’ turn without any signal. As a result, the driver of the DCM vehicle dashed the lorry and accident has taken place. Respondent No.1-applicant has sustained Grade-III B compound medial canyle fracture right tibia, Grade-III B supra condylar fracture right femur, fracture right closed medial malleoli with right D/3 rd fibula fracture, fracture left parasymphysial besides other multiple injuries all over the body. Applicant was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, where he has undergone surgeries with debridement + medial gastronemius flap cover + ssg, external fixator for right supra condylar femur, IMF + ORIF for left and he was discharged on 19.08.2015. The applicant was earning Rs.8,000/- per month apart from Rs.100/- per day towards batha and he has incurred Rs.3 Lakhs towards his treatment, was aged about 40 years as on the date of accident. 4. Respondent No.2-opposite party No.1 remained ex parte before the Commissioner of Labour-I. 5. Appellant-opposite party No.2 filed counter and contended that respondent No.1-applicant is not an employee with the opposite party No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) and is not covered under the policy. The compensation claimed is exorbitant and excessive and the driver of DCM bearing No.AP 21 TT 0044 is not holding valid and effective license to drive the said vehicle, the vehicle has no fitness certificate and permit. There is violation of policy and prayed to dismiss the same. 6. The learned Commissioner has framed the following issues: 1. The compensation claimed is exorbitant and excessive and the driver of DCM bearing No.AP 21 TT 0044 is not holding valid and effective license to drive the said vehicle, the vehicle has no fitness certificate and permit. There is violation of policy and prayed to dismiss the same. 6. The learned Commissioner has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant sustained injuries in the accident on 01.08.2015 during the course and out of his employment with the 1 st opposite party as a labourer on the DCM bearing No.AP 21 TT 0044? 2. If yes, what is the percentage of disability and consequent loss of earning capacity suffered by the applicant? 3. Who are liable to pay compensation to the applicant? 4. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the applicant? 7. Respondent No.1 is examined as AW.1, and also examined AW.2-Dr.G.Subhash Rao, MS Ortho; AW.3-Mr.Raj Kumar, and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. The Assistant Manager of the appellant is examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3. 8. The learned Commissioner after going through the evidence of the parties coupled with the documents has awarded total compensation of Rs.7,67,778/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 02.09.2015 till the date of realisation directing opposite parties No.1 and 2 (respondent No.2 and appellant herein) to deposit the amount jointly and severally within 30 days of receipt of the order. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner erred in coming to a conclusion that the applicant has sustained injuries in a road accident on 01.08.2015 during the course of his employment as a labourer on DCM van bearing No.AP 21 TT 0044 and there was no relationship between the applicant with that of opposite party No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) as an employee and employer at the time of accident. Learned Commissioner erred in rejecting the contention of the appellant that no additional premium is paid by the owner of the DCM van covering the risk of the labourer and also erred in relying on Ex.A5 Disability certificate which was not issued by the Medical Board constituted by the Government, wrongly came to a conclusion that the loss of earning capacity of the applicant is 100% percent, and also erred in entertaining the evidence of AW.2 (Dr.G.Subhash Rao) and prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order. 10. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1–applicant submits that the learned Commissioner has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly awarded the compensation, there is no substantial question of law in entertaining the Appeal, no interference is called for. To support his contention, he relied on the decision of this Court in M/s. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Korra Chinni and Another , CMA No. 692 of 2013 dated 03.01.2024 of Telangana High Court. 11. Notice to respondent No.2 is served on 21.08.2025 but failed to appear. 12. Heard counsel on record, perused the material. 13. Now the points for consideration are: (1) Whether the appellant has made out any substantial question of law to decide the Appeal, if so? (2) Whether the order passed by learned Commissioner in EC No.271 of 2015, dated 20.11.2017 suffers from any perversity, illegality. And if so, does it requires any interference of this Court? 14. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the Appeal is confined only to examine the substantial question of law arising in the case. 15. Substantial question of law means that the point must be one that can be reasonably discussed and would have a significant bearing on the decision if answered in either way and the question must have a significant impact on the cases final outcome. If the answer to the question, whether yes or no would substantially change the decision then it is considered as a substantial question of law. 16. To establish the employer-employee relationship, evidence is used to show the existence of crucial factors like the power to hire, the power to pay wages, the power to dismiss and the power to control the individual’s work. Court will only interfere with findings on this issue if there is a complete lack of evidence or if the finding is obviously erroneous or perverse. 17. Court will only interfere with findings on this issue if there is a complete lack of evidence or if the finding is obviously erroneous or perverse. 17. D.Baladasthagiri has lodged a complaint before PS Kothakota on 01.08.2015 stating that his father D.Dasthagiri was working as a driver on DCM bearing No.AP 21 TT 0044 and when they reached near to the Palem village on 01.08.2015 night around at 01.30 hours meanwhile, one driver of lorry bearing No.AP 21 X 5218 drove his lorry in a rash and negligent manner and was proceeding in front of his father's DCM, and without taking any precautions, measures and signals suddenly turned his lorry to his right side to take U-turn towards Hyderabad. His father (D.Dasthagiri) unable to stop his DCM and gave a hit behind to the lorry. Both the driver and cleaner were stuck in the cabin and sustained multiple injuries and they instantly succumbed and Pamileti is the labourer of the DCM. 18. Basing on the said complaint, PS Kothakota has registered Ex.A1-FIR No.103 of 2015 dated 01.08.2015 under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC against the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 21 X 5218. As per Ex.A1, respondent No.1–applicant is shown as a labourer. Ex.A2 is the charge sheet filed by PS Kothakota wherein the applicant is shown as injured labourer in the DCM vehicle. Ex.A3 is the Injury certificate issued by Medical Officer, Area Hospital, Wanaparthy which shows that the respondent No.1-applicant has received 3 grievous injuries, which are stated supra in para No.3. Ex.A4 is the discharge summary issued by NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. Wherein the date of admission of the respondent No.1-applicant is 01.08.2015 and he was discharged on 19.08.2015. Ex.A5 is the disability certificate issued by AW.2, and the estimation of disability is 80%. Ex.A6 is the driving license of the driver of the DCM vehicle and its date of validity is 16.06.2017 transport light motor vehicle. Ex.A7 is the certificate of registration of DCM vehicle bearing No.AP 21 TT 0044 which is valid from 05.03.2008 to 11.04.2013. Ex.A8 is the insurance policy of the DCM vehicle which is valid from 11.02.2015 to 10.02.2016. Ex.A9 are the medical bills for Rs.85,022/- and Ex.A10 is the accident report of lorry bearing No. AP 21 X 5218, the driver name is shown as K.Rama Mohan, driving license is valid up to 27.08.2017 vide license No.AP42120130000407. 19. Ex.A8 is the insurance policy of the DCM vehicle which is valid from 11.02.2015 to 10.02.2016. Ex.A9 are the medical bills for Rs.85,022/- and Ex.A10 is the accident report of lorry bearing No. AP 21 X 5218, the driver name is shown as K.Rama Mohan, driving license is valid up to 27.08.2017 vide license No.AP42120130000407. 19. The evidence of AW.1 (respondent No.1 herein) is the same with that of his application. In his cross-examination, he stated that he has not filed any appointment letter showing that he was appointed by opposite party No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) and that Ex.A3 does not bear that he has been referred to the Hospital, he was never treated by Dr.Subhash Rao-AW.2, and he has not taken any fresh X-rays before issuing Ex.A5. AW.1 denied the suggestion that the claim does not cover the policy issued by opposite party No.2 (appellant herein) as there is no additional premium paid for coverage of workmen and also denied the suggestion that the medical bills are fabricated for the purpose of the case, and that he has not received any injuries. 20. AW.2- Dr.G.Subhash Rao, Orthopaedic surgeon deposed that AW.1 came to him on 13.02.2017 for obtaining disability certificate, and he has examined the patient and found the following injuries: Grade IIIB Fracture compound medical condyle right tibia, Grade-III B fracture supra condylar right femur, medial malleolar fracture right, fracture lower end right fibula, fracture parasymphysial mandible. And he assessed the disability at 80% which is partial and permanent, as AW.1 is a labourer cannot work and his loss of earning capacity is 100%. In his cross-examination, he stated that the injuries mentioned in the discharge summary issued by NIMS are not schedule injuries, and he has not mentioned which portion of Kessler's guidelines he has assessed the disability at 80%. He denied the suggestion that the Medical Board has to consider the disability of the injuries alleged to be sustained by AW.1, as such Ex.A5 is against the probability. 21. AW.3 evidence is to the extent that the patient (AW.1) has paid an amount of Rs.85,022/- towards hospitalization charges as an inpatient in NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. He denied the suggestion that bills are not issued in accordance to the provisions of NI Act. 22. 21. AW.3 evidence is to the extent that the patient (AW.1) has paid an amount of Rs.85,022/- towards hospitalization charges as an inpatient in NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. He denied the suggestion that bills are not issued in accordance to the provisions of NI Act. 22. RW.1 who is the Assistant Manager of the appellant deposed that the applicant was travelling in a goods vehicle, which is in gross violation of the policy. In his cross -examination, he stated that as per the police record, the applicant is a labourer, and the policy is a package policy, and labourer is also covered subject to terms and conditions. 23. The complaint lodged by D.Baladasthagiri supports the claim of the respondent No.1-applicant that he is a labourer of the DCM vehicle, and the investigation done by PS Kothakota at the time of filing charge sheet also goes to show that the applicant is injured labourer in the DCM and he is cited as LW.3 as a witness. The evidence of AW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 goes to show that he was employed by the respondent No.2-opposite party No.1 as a labourer in DCM bearing No.AP 21 TT 0044. 24. AW.2 is competent to assess the physical disability of AW.1 as per Section 2(1)(i) of Workmen’s Compensation Act. Ex.A4 is the discharge summary issued by NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad wherein AW.1 has received injuries i.e., “Gr III B compound medial candyle # right tibia + Gr III B supra candylar # right femur with right closed medial malleoli with right D/3 rd fibula # with # left parasymphysial & angle of”. AW.2 after examining AW.1 has issued Ex.A5 certificate. As AW.1 is the labourer and the earning capacity is arrived at 100%. No incriminating material is elicited from the cross-examination of AW.2 by the insurance company. 25. Respondent No.1-applicant stated that he was earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month apart from Rs.100 per day towards batha. The learned Commissioner has relied on minimum rates of wages fixed by the Government of Telangana in GOMS No.83, LET & F, Labour 2 department dated 22.11.2006 with effect from 04.12.2006 and the basic wage of the labourer was taken as Rs.2,645/- per month, and as per Ex.A5, the age of AW.1 is taken as 40 and arrived at the compensation of Rs.6,79,228/- and also considered the evidence of AW3 and allowed the medical expenses of Rs.85,022/-. 26. As on the date of accident i.e., 01.08.2015, Ex.B1 policy is in force and labourer is also covered in the policy. 27. In Shriram General Insurance Company, this court referred the judgment of the Apex Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Sujatha , (2019) 11 SCC 514 and Golla Rajanna vs. The Divisional Manager and Another , 2017 (2) Andh LD 14 (SC) and held that the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial question of law arising in the case. 28. The contentions raised by the appellant’s counsel do not fall within the ambit of Section 30 of the Act, and no substantial question of law is made out by the appellant. 29. The learned commissioner has properly analysed the evidence on record and rightly awarded justifiable compensation. There is no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Commissioner and it does not suffer from any perversity or illegality and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Appellant has not made out any case to set aside the impugned order, Appeal deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Hence, point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 30. CMA No.9 of 2018 is dismissed without costs. Interim orders, if any, shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous applications stands closed.