1. The instant appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (now Employee's Compensation Act,1923) has been filed by the appellant-company being aggrieved of the award dated 15.07.2015 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Labour Court, Sagar, in C.O.C.B. No.02/2014/- W.C.F., whereby the claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune Rs.8,79,800/-.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Sachin was working as a driver under the employment of respondent No.3. The respondent No.1 and 2/claimants are the father and mother of the deceased Sachin Gupta. They were dependent on the deceased Sachin. Non-applicant No.1/respondent No.3 was the employer of the deceased Sachin, who was working under his employment before his death. Deceased Sachin had gone to Bhopal on the request of respondent No.3 in a goods carrier vehicle bearing registration number MP-49-L-0124 and had stayed overnight at Rajkumar Hotel owned by respondent No.4/non-applicant No.2. On 01.06.2013, when the deceased was staying in the said hotel, suddenly hotel caught fire, due to which he died. Deceased Sachin's monthly income was Rs.6000/- and he was given Rs.150/- as food allowance when he went out. Deceased Sachin was 23 years old at the time of his death.

3. This appeal has been filed by appellant/Insurance Company arising following question of law as under:-

          (i) Whether learned Commissioner erred in law in holding the appellant -- insurance company of vehicle liable for the death of Sachin who died in a fire accident in the hotel when he is taking rest there, and vehicle has nothing to do with the fire or death of Sachin?

          (ii) Whether learned Commissioner erred in law in holding appellant liable for the compensation when employer-employee relationship is not established? And deceased didn't die in the course of employment?

          (iii) Whether Tribunal below grossly erred in not appreciating the evidence properly and ignoring the documentary evidence?

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that Commissioner, Labour Court has committed an error of law in holding the appellant/Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation/award amount to the claimants/respondent No.1 and 2. It is further submitted that basic document of identity of driver like driving license was not produced before Commissioner, Labour Court to show that deceased could drive the vehicle. Nothing in relation to wages or income by way of profession of driver was produced by the claimants/respondent No.1 and 2. Claimants in collusion with non- applicant No.1/respondent No.3 have falsely involved vehicle No.MP- 49-L-0124 in the matter. Although, it was a case of death due to burn injuries, due to fire at Hotel where deceased was stay. Commissioner, Labour Court has grossly erred in awarding compensation to claimants/respondent No.1 and 2 without considering reliable evidence. In these circumstances, the impugned award is contrary to law, facts, and evidence on record, and therefore, liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, contending that the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are just and proper and warrant no interference.

6. Heard the counsel for the parties.

7. Considering the evidence, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held that the income of the deceased Sachin Gupta was Rs.9,000/- per month. On said basis, the Commissioner assessed and awarded a sum of Rs.8,79,800/- along with simple interest @12% per annum and fixed the liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant/insurance company.

8. The main argument presented by the appellant/insurance company is that no document has been submitted by the claimants/respondent No.1 and 2 regarding the driving license of the deceased. Similarly, no document has been presented in relation to the deceased which would reveal that the deceased was working as employee of non-applicant No.1 Ashish Gupta/respondent No.3 on the date of incident. The application should have been rejected by the Labour Court on the above grounds. The above argument of the appellant/insurance company is not acceptable because non-applicant no.1 Ashish Gupta/respondent No.3 has admitted in his reply that the deceased was employed with him. In such a situation, in the absence of documents, it cannot be assumed that the deceased was not employed with the non-applicant No.1 Ashish Gupta.]

9. It is also noteworthy that it is evident from the testimony of Kallu @ Rameshwar Gupta (PW-1) and Anil Gupta (PW-2) that on the date of accident, the deceased had gone to Bhopal in the vehicle of non- applicant no.1 Ashish Gupta/respondent No.3 for the work of non- applicant no.1 and had stayed in a hotel and during this time he died due to fire in the hotel. The above fact is also proved by the reply submitted by non-applicant no.1 Ashish Gupta/respondent No.3.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on going through the record, this Court does not find anything to the compass that claimants had not proved their claim. No contrary evidence was adduced by the appellant/Insurance Company so as to controvert the evidence adduced by the claimants. The learned Labour Court has correctly arrived at conclusion that Truck No.MP-49-L-0124 was insured on the date of accident by the appellant/insurance company, however, it is assumed that the appellant/insurance company cannot escape the obligation to pay the damages on the ground that deceased Sachin Gupta died due to an electrical fire in the hotel. Aforesaid questions of law arose by appellant/Insurance Company in this appeal are corroborated by substantial questions of law which have already rightly been decided by Labour Court. As a result, this Court does not find any merits and substance in this case.

11. In view of aforesaid, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

12. Record of the Labour Court be sent back.