JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 assailing the order passed in WC.No.4 of 2014, dated 26.09.2016 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad. 2. Appellant is the opposite party No.2. Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 are the applicants, respondent No.4 is the opposite party No.1 in W.C.No.4 of 2014 3.1 Learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party No.2 submits that the learned Commissioner failed to see that respondent Nos.1, 2, 3-applicants failed to establish that the deceased died on 09.05.2013 in a motor vehicle accident during the course of his employment as a driver on lorry bearing No.AP-05-TX-3569 under the employment of Respondent No.4 - opposite party No.1, and they also failed to prove the relationship of the deceased with that of respondent No.4-opposite party No.1 as employee and employer, and that the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 – applicants failed to produce that the deceased was having a valid driving license as on the date of accident, and they did not file any document to show that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. The compensation claimed is improper and the parents of the deceased are not made as parties as they are alive which is admitted by AW.1 (respondent No.1 herein). 3.2 Counsel submits the substantial question of law is as under: A. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 – applicants utterly failed to establish that the deceased died on 09.05.2013 in a motor vehicle accident during the course of his employment as a driver of lorry bearing No.AP 05 TX 3569 under the employment of respondent No.4-opposite party No.1. B. The evidence adduced by the appellant-opposite party No.2, it has been categorically established that it is a case of violation of policy conditions under Ex.B1 as the respondent No.4-opposite party No.1 has allowed the deceased to drive the lorry without having valid and effective driving license. C. The learned Commissioner erred in dismissing the WC in limini, as the same was hit by res-judicata under Section 11 of CPC in view of the fact that the respondent Nos.1 to 3- applicants filed another WC No.13 of 2014 for the same relief against the same parties and the same was pending as on the date of passing the order in WC.No.4 of 2014. D. The learned Commissioner ought to have dismissed WC.No.4 of 2014 on the sole ground of non-joinder of proper and necessary parties i.e., the parents of the deceased, who are also entitled for compensation, along with respondent Nos.1 to 3-applicants. 3.3. Prayed to set aside the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3-applicants submits that the learned Commissioner has appreciated the facts of the case in a proper perspective by taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties coupled with the exhibits thereon and rightly passed order in favour of the applicants, no interference is called for, and prayed to dismiss the Appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 6. Now the points for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any substantial question of law to be decided in the Appeal, if so? 2. Whether the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad, in WC No.4 of 2014 dated 26.09.2016 suffers from any perversity, illegality. If so, does it requires any interference of this court? 7. Respondent No.1-applicant No.1 is the wife, respondent Nos.2 and 3-applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased Rama Krishna. Respondent Nos.1 to 3–applicants filed claim application stating that the deceased was working as driver on lorry bearing No.AP 05 TX 3569 belonging to respondent No.4 – opposite party No.1 since long time, till the date of the accident. On 09.05.2013 at about 4.00 hours while the deceased lorry driver was performing his duties as a driver and while he was proceeding towards Jabalpur with a load of coconuts and when he reached near Donbosco school, Ambedkar Nagar, Thallada, he lost control over the Lorry due to which he dashed the opposite lorry bearing No.AP 24 X 4788 and the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. The deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month apart from daily batta of Rs.100/-, and was aged about 33 years as on the date of accident. On the complaint, case in Crime No.54 of 2013 is registered against the Respondent No.4- opposite party No.1 and the appellant-opposite party No.2. Insurance policy is in force as on the date of accident and prayed to grant Rs.10 Lakhs towards compensation with interest @ 12% per annum. 8. Respondent No.4-opposite party No.1 remained ex parte before the Commissioner. Notice to respondent No.4 is served on 28.08.2025. 9. Insurance policy is in force as on the date of accident and prayed to grant Rs.10 Lakhs towards compensation with interest @ 12% per annum. 8. Respondent No.4-opposite party No.1 remained ex parte before the Commissioner. Notice to respondent No.4 is served on 28.08.2025. 9. Appellant-opposite party No.2 filed counter and contended that the deceased was not possessing valid driving license as on the date of accident and he was not authorised to drive lorry bearing No.AP 05 TX 3569 which is a heavy vehicle, and that the respondent No.4-opposite party No.1 entrusted the said vehicle to unauthorised, incapable, and insufficient and inefficient person which is in gross violation of the policy conditions and the respondent Nos.1 to 3-applicants have also filed another case in WC No.13 of 2014 which is pending before CWC - ACL-II for the same cause of action. Hence, the claim is not maintainable and they also issued notice to respondent No.4 – opposite party No.1 to furnish RC of the crime vehicle, permit, driving license, tax pay particulars and fitness certificate and prayed to dismiss the claim application. 10. The learned Commissioner has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident on 09.05.2013 during the course and out of his employment as driver on the lorry bearing No.AP 05 TX 3569 under the employment of opposite party No.1? 2. If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the depandants of the deceased? and ; 3. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the dependants of the deceased? 11. Respondent No.1 is examined as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Assistant manager of the appellant is examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B4. 12. The learned Commissioner after going through the evidence adduced by the parties and the documents thereon has awarded total compensation of Rs.6,47,507/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 10.06.2013 till the date of deposit jointly and severally against opposite party No.1 (respondent No.4 herein) and opposite party No.2 (appellant herein) within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. 13. 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. 14. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. M.Anandrao has lodged a complaint before PS Thallada stating that his cousin M.Rama Krishna (deceased) went as a second driver along with Nageshwar Rao on lorry No.AP 05 TX 3569 on 08.05.2013 at about 6.00 P.M. On 09.05.2013 at about 7.00 hours, the lorry owner (respondent No.4 herein) informed him over phone that the lorry was going to Jabalpur with coconuts load on the way at 4.00 hours when it has reached Ambedkar Nagar of Thallada Mandal of Kammam District, the driver Rama Krishna dashed against the Trailer lorry bearing No.AP 24X 4788 and died on the spot. Another driver by name Nageshwar Rao has informed the same to the lorry owner. He, his relatives, and the owner of the lorry altogether went to the accident place and found that both legs of Ramakrishna were cut off and body was sticked to rock of trailer lorry. 17. Basing on the said complaint, PS Thallada has registered Ex.A1- FIR No.54 of 2013 dated 09.05.2013 under Section 304(A), 337 of IPC. Ex.A2 is the inquest report which shows that the deceased is the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 05 TX 3569. Ex.A3 is the Final Report in FIR No.54 of 2013 of PS Thallada which goes to show that M.Nageshwar Rao is an eye-witness to the incident. Ex.A2 is the inquest report which shows that the deceased is the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 05 TX 3569. Ex.A3 is the Final Report in FIR No.54 of 2013 of PS Thallada which goes to show that M.Nageshwar Rao is an eye-witness to the incident. Ex.A3 further goes to show that M.Nageshwar Rao is a regular driver of lorry bearing No.AP 05TX 3569 and respondent No.4 – opposite party No.1 is the owner of the lorry. Owner of the lorry has engaged the deceased Sriramakrishna as a second driver on 08.05.2013. Nageshwar Rao – LW.4 drove the lorry up to Aswaraopet, from there the deceased started to drive the lorry, on the way at about 4.00 hours, when the lorry reached Ambedkar Nagar the deceased drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner might have slept and went extreme right and dashed the trailer lorry No.AP 24X 4788 which was coming in opposite direction with granite rock from Karimnagar, due to which the cabin of the lorry was totally damaged and both legs of the deceased was cut off, and the body was sticked to rock of the trailer, and the driver and cleaner of trailer No.AP 24X 4788 also sustained simple injuries. Ex.A4 is the Postmortem Report which shows that the deceased died due to multiple fractures, and injuries leading to Hypovolamic shock and death. Ex.A5 is the accident report which shows that the driver is Rama Krishna. But the particulars of the driving license is shown as No. Ex.A6 is the xerox copy of RC of the lorry. Ex.A7 is the permit, and Ex.A8 is the Insurance policy for lorry bearing No.AP 05TX 3569. 18. RW.1 – AW.1 gave evidence stating that her husband died during the course of employment. In her cross-examination she stated that the mother and father of the deceased are alive and she has not filed the appointment letter of the deceased. So, also, she has not filed any document to show that her husband used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month towards salary. She has also not filed the driving license of her husband. Witness adds that the driving license of the deceased was lost on the spot of the accident, and as per the documents filed by her, they does not reveal that the deceased was holding license. She has also not filed the driving license of her husband. Witness adds that the driving license of the deceased was lost on the spot of the accident, and as per the documents filed by her, they does not reveal that the deceased was holding license. AW.1 denied the suggestion that the deceased was highly intoxicated at the time of the accident which is in gross violation of the policy condition, also denied the suggestion that Exs.A1 to A8 are fabricated for the purpose of the case and that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the goods carrier and not a driver. She also denied the suggestion that herself and her children have also filed another case in WC No.13 of 2014, which is pending before CWC-ACL -II, Hyderabad. 19. The Assistant Manager of the appellant is examined as RW1. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the Insurance Policy is issued in respect of vehicle in question is valid on the date of accident and they have collected premium to cover the risk of the driver. He denied the suggestion that the deceased died during the course of his employment on the insured vehicle, and that the deceased was having a valid driving license as on the date of accident. 20. It is not the case of the appellant-opposite party No.2 that the claim application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. There is no pleading in the counter to that effect that the parents of the deceased are alive and they are proper and necessary parties to the claim application. It is worth mentioning that it is also not the case of the appellant-opposite party No.2 that the deceased was in intoxicated condition and drove the lorry and caused the accident. A suggestion is put to AW.1 that the deceased was in drunken condition. 21. Opposite party No.2 failed to adduce any evidence to show that the respondent Nos.1 to 3-applicants have filed another case in WC No.13 of 2014 pending before CWC-ACL-II Hyderabad. The said contention is also not proved. Appellant-opposite party No.2 failed to adduce any evidence that the deceased do not possess valid driving license to drive the lorry bearing No.AP 05 TX 3569. Respondent No.1-AW1 proved that the deceased died during the course of his employment, through her evidence coupled with Exs.A2, A3 and they have discharged their initial burden. 22. Appellant-opposite party No.2 failed to adduce any evidence that the deceased do not possess valid driving license to drive the lorry bearing No.AP 05 TX 3569. Respondent No.1-AW1 proved that the deceased died during the course of his employment, through her evidence coupled with Exs.A2, A3 and they have discharged their initial burden. 22. In so far as the earning of the deceased is concerned, the learned Commissioner has taken the basic wages for the category of heavy vehicle driver as Rs.4,319/- per month, and taken the age of the deceased as 38 years as per Ex.A4-PME report and awarded total compensation of Rs.6,47,507/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 10.06.2013. Appellant -opposite party No.2 failed to prove that WC No.4 of 2014 is hit by res-judicata and also failed to prove that there is a violation of Ex.B1 policy. Accident occurred on 09.05.2013 and Ex.B1 policy is from 27.02.2013 which expires on the midnight of 26.02.2014. Ex.B1 policy is in force as on the date of accident, and they have collected the premium to cover the risk of the driver. 23. The learned Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad, has appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties by taking into consideration the documents filed there on and rightly arrived at a compensation of Rs.6,47,507/- payable by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 (respondent No.4 herein and appellant herein) jointly and severally, with interest @ 12% per annum from 10.06.2013, till the date of deposit. No interference is called for and the appellant has not made out any substantial question of law. 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. 24. Appeal is dismissed without costs. Interim orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.