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 by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad in WC.No.79 of 2015, dated 15.06.2016. 2.1. Appellant herein is opposite party No.2, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the applicants and respondent No.4 is the opposite party No.1 in W.C.No.79 of 2015. 2.2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3-applicants have filed petition under Section 22 of Employees Compensation Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of accident on the death of U.Yadaiah against the opposite parties jointly and severally. 2.3. Respondent No.1-applicant No.1 is the wife, respondent Nos.2 and 3-applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of deceased U.Yadaiah. 3.1. It is stated in the application that U.Yadaiah was working as a laborer on a Tata Ace vehicle bearing No.AP16TY4945 under the employment of respondent No.4-opposite party No.1 and died on 16.05.2015 due to injuries sustained in the accident occurred on 30.03.2025 during the course of employment. On 30.03.2025, U.Yadaiah was on duty as laborer on the above said Tata Ace vehicle along with driver and other laborers, who were proceeding towards Makkampet for loading of red chilly and on the way at about 03.00 a.m., when they reached Mukkududevulapally cross roads, the driver of Tata Ace vehicle drove the same in rash and negligent manner due to which U.Yadaiah and others fell down from the vehicle. U.Yadaiah sustained grievous head injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Suryapet and for better treatment, he was shifted to Sunrise Hospital, Hyderabad. While undergoing treatment, he died on 16.05.2015. Deceased U.Yadaiah died during the course of his employment and that respondent Nos.1 to 3-applicants have spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards treatment of the deceased. 3.2. On the complaint, PS Athmakuru has registered a case in Crime No.54 of 2015 initially under Section 337 of IPC and after the death of U.Yadaiah, Section of Law was altered to Section 304- A of IPC. Deceased U.Yadaiah used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month, apart from that he used to get Rs.50/- per day towards batha and he was aged about 45 years as on the date of accident. Respondent No.4-opposite party No.1 was aware of the accident. Deceased U.Yadaiah used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month, apart from that he used to get Rs.50/- per day towards batha and he was aged about 45 years as on the date of accident. Respondent No.4-opposite party No.1 was aware of the accident. Crime vehicle is insured with appellant-opposite party No.2, which is valid from 10.10.2014 to 09.10.2015, which is covering the date of accident (16.05.2015) and prayed to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest thereon. 4.1. Respondent No.4-opposite party No.1 has filed his counter and admitted the manner in which the accident has taken place and also admitted that he is the owner of the crime vehicle, he was doing business and engaged deceased U.Yadaiah for loading and unloading of chilly. He further stated that policy is in force and that appellant-opposite party No.2 is liable to pay the same and prayed to dismiss the claim application against him. 4.2. Appellant-opposite party No.2 filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place and further contended that no separate premium is paid to cover the risk of laborers, in absence of premium paid to the laborers, appellant-opposite party No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. The learned Commissioner has framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the deceased died on 16.05.2015 due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 30.03.2015 during the course and out of his employment as a laborer under the employment of the opposite party No.1 on the Tata Ace vehicle bearing No.AP16TY4945? 2. If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the deceased? and ; 3. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the dependants of the deceased? 6. Respondent No.1-applicant No.1 is examined as AW-1 and also examined AW-2-Mr. E.Ashok Reddy and got marked Ex.A1 to A11. Respondent No.4-opposite party No.1 is examined as RW-1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B4. Appellant-opposite party No.2 has examined its Assistant Manger-Mr. Abhijeet Dubey as RW-2 and got marked Ex.B5. 7. Learned Commissioner after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties has awarded compensation of Rs.7,50,338/- holding that Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 therein (respondent No.4 and appellant herein) are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount along with interest at 12% per annum on the amount of compensation from 01.05.2015 till the date of realization. 8. 7. Learned Commissioner after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties has awarded compensation of Rs.7,50,338/- holding that Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 therein (respondent No.4 and appellant herein) are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount along with interest at 12% per annum on the amount of compensation from 01.05.2015 till the date of realization. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant-opposite party No.2 submits that the following substantial question of law arises in the appeal is as under: 1. Whether the Commissioner is correct in fastening the liability on the appellant-opposite party No.2 where there is no cover of risk in the policy? 2. Whether the Commissioner is correct in coming to the conclusion that the jural relationship of employee and employer exists basing on the evidence of Ex.B1 to B4? 9. 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 and rightly awarded compensation to the applicants. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision in the case of Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Kalaivani , 2017 Supreme (Mad) 4281. 10. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 11. Now the point for consideration is: whether the appellant- opposite party No.2 has made out any substantial question of law to interfere with the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad ? Point: 12. Appeal is filed under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 wherein, Section 30 proviso states that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred in Clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees. 13. The evidence of AW-1 coupled with the evidence of RW-1 goes to show that deceased U.Yadaiah was employee and he died during the employment which is fortified with Ex.A1, A2, A3 and A4. 14. Learned Commissioner while considering the evidence of AW-1, RW-1 and RW-2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A4 has arrived at a conclusion that deceased U.Yadaiah died during the course of his employment by assailing cogent reasons in paragraph Nos.22, 23 and 24 of its order. 15. 14. Learned Commissioner while considering the evidence of AW-1, RW-1 and RW-2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A4 has arrived at a conclusion that deceased U.Yadaiah died during the course of his employment by assailing cogent reasons in paragraph Nos.22, 23 and 24 of its order. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party No.2 submits that as separate premium to cover the risk of laborers is not paid, in absence of premium to the laborer, appellant-opposite party No.2 is not liable to indemnify the liability of respondent No.4-opposite party No.1. The very same submission was submitted before the learned Commissioner, which is reproduced in paragraph No.26 of its order. 16. Learned Commissioner while considering the contention of the appellant-opposite party No.2 has placed reliance on the decision in the cases of Pinkey Naik vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and others , 2014 ACJ 1776 and United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Balwinder and others , 2015 ACJ 670 and observed in paragraph No.27 of it is order that: “The opposite party No.2 is bound to indemnify the liability of the opposite party No.1 under the above said valid and subsisting insurance policy. Nothing has been placed on record, whereby the opposite party No.2 can escape its liability. Therefore, it is held that the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the deceased workman, who died due to the injuries sustained in the accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment as a laborer under the employment of opposite party No.1 on the insured Tata Ace vehicle bearing No.AP16TY4945”. 17. In Kalavani, the High Court of Madras observed as under: “The tractor with a trailer used for transportation of agricultural produce and other goods would be very much a goods vehicle. Besides, such a tractor and trailer would be a goods carriage within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, in which event the risk of workmen/loaders of the tractor-trailer is necessarily to be covered under Section 147 as an Act Policy without collecting any additional premium. In that view of the matter, the insurer in this case would be liable to be pay the entire compensation in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.” 18.1. In that view of the matter, the insurer in this case would be liable to be pay the entire compensation in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.” 18.1. 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. 18.2. 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. 19. 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. 20. In view of the observations made by the learned Commissioner in paragraph No.27 of its order and latest judgments cited by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, which shows that the Insurance Company is necessarily liable to pay the amount. 21. Learned counsel for appellant has not made out any substantial question of law in the appeal and there are no merits in the case and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. 22. Appeal is dismissed without costs. Interim orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.