Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:100932 Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2211 of 2017 Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Firasat Hussain And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Manohar Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Singh Chauhan,Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar 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 judgement and award dated 18.05.2017 passed by Employee's Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner Moradabad Region, Moradabad in E.C.A. No.105 of 2015. 3. Challenging the award learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the instant case, the insurance company has filed the Investigator Report and as per the Investigator Report, the deceased was Cleaner on the Truck of one Shamshad and he was not the employee of respondent no.3. 4. It is contended that the Investigated Report was proved by producing the Investigator. It is contended that the insurance company has proved that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the respondent no.3 and therefore the appellant company cannot be fastened any liability to pay compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that in the instant case, the respondent no.3 filed his written statement wherein he admitted the employment of the deceased as Cleaner on his Truck. It is further submitted that the owner-respondent no.3 appeared before the Commissioner and submitted that deceased was his employee. Accordingly, it is submitted that the finding returned by the Employee's Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner Moradabad Region, Moradabad is a finding of fact based upon the proper appreciation of evidence. 6. Be that as it may, the investigation report on which the reliance has been placed by the appellant contained information collected during the investigation by the Investigator company, though, the Investigator of the company appeared before the Commissioner to prove the investigation report but once the owner of the Truck has appeared before the Commissioner and has admitted the employment of the deceased, the report of the Investigator cannot be given precedence over the testimony of owner of the Truck who admitted the employment of the deceased inasmuch as the owner is the first person who can tell that the deceased was employed with him or not. 7. 7. In such view of the fact, the finding returned by the Commissioner with regard to the relationship of employer and employee between owner of the offending Truck and the deceased is a finding of fact based upon the proper appreciation of evidence on record. Since the appeal under Section 30(1)(a) of Employees' Compensation Act lies only on the substantial question of law and in the instant case, there is no substantial question of law which requires consideration by this Court, therefore, appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with no order as to cost. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Mohit Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad