Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90387 Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3741 of 2011 Appellant :- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Narain Gujrati And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Amaresh Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi,Jay Prakash Singh,Shreesh Srivastava Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Appellant by means of present appeal has assailed the judgment and order dated 26.09.2011 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kanpur in W.C. Case No.262 of 2008 (Narain Gujrati and others Vs. Mahesh Kumar Dixit and others). 3. Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the deceased was travelling on the offending Truck as a passenger and there was no relationship of employer and employee between the owner of the Truck and the deceased. It is contended that it is proved by GD entry and thus, the Commissioner has erred in law in holding that there was relationship of employer and employee between owner of the Truck and deceased. It is contended that the finding of the Commissioner in respect to the employment of the deceased is perverse. Therefore, the Commissioner has erred in law in fastening the liability upon the appellant to pay compensation to the claimants-respondents. 4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that in the instant case, the owner of the Truck had filed written statement and also appeared before the Commissioner and admitted the employment of the deceased. It is contended that in view of the statement of the owner of the Truck that the deceased was employed as labour on the Truck, the relationship of the employer and employee between the owner of the Truck and the deceased was proved and the finding in this regard is a finding of fact which does not warrant any interference by this Court in this appellate jurisdiction. 5. Be that as it may, in the instant case the insurance company has placed reliance upon the GD entry to dispute the relationship of employer and employee between the owner of Truck and the deceased. The GD entry is not the conclusive proof of employment. In the instant case, owner has admitted the factum of employment in his written statement as well as in his testimony before the Commissioner. The insurance company did not lead any evidence in rebuttal to the testimony of the owner of the offending Truck. Thus, the finding of the Commissioner on the issue of employment between the owner of the Truck and deceased is a finding of fact which is based upon the proper appreciation of evidence and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. Since the appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 shall lie only on substantial question of law and in the present case, there is no substantial question of law which requires answer by this Court, therefore, appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Mohit Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad