(1.) THE insurer is in appeal against the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner on the specific ground of violation of policy. The finding of the Commissioner that the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured for the liability to compensate the fatal accident of the insured's workman is challenged. The case of the applicants, dependent parents of the deceased workman, was that while their son was employed as a drilling assistant under the first opposite party, he met with an accident which resulted in his death. The accident occurred in a quarry owned by the 4th opposite party on 09.01.1997 while the deceased was operating a drilling machine attached to the tractor owned by the first opposite party.
(2.) THE first opposite party contented in the counter filed by her that neither the deceased person nor RW5 who was alleged to be the driver of the tractor at the time of the incident, were ever employed by her. The ownership of the vehicle and the attachment of the drilling unit to the said vehicle was not denied in the counter. The fact that the vehicle and the drilling unit were being used in the quarry where the accident took place also was not disputed. The firstopposite party disputed the employer-employee relationship and alleged that the deceased was merely a way-fairer who had been visiting a friend of his at the quarry and while so slipped from a rock and fell to his death. The quarry was owned by the fourth opposite party and it was the case of the first opposite party that the deceased person being either an employee of the quarry- owner or a visitor at the quarry; the liability to compensate the dependents of the deceased workman was entirely on the quarry owner. By an additional affidavit it was also contented by the first opposite party that in any event the vehicle was insured with the third opposite party and in the event of any liability to compensation being found against her, the third opposite party was liable to indemnify her as per the terms of the policy.