( 1 ) THE appellant has filed this appeal under Section 30 (1) of Workmen's compensation Act challenging the judgment and award dated 26-3-2003 passed'in WCA/ sr/450/2000 on the file of the Labour Officer and Workmen Compensation Commissioner, bijapur.

( 2 ) THE substantial question of law involved in this appeal is. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is justified in holding that there is relationship of master and servant in between respondent-1 and the deceased. If so. whether the appellant is liable to indemnify the first respondent?

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent-2 is the wife of respondent-1. Respondent-1 is the owner of Maruti Car bearing No. MH-13-F-0504. The deceased -Umesh Dengi was the son of respondents and he was working as driver under respondent-1. Respondent-2 filed a claim petition claiming that the deceased Umesh met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries during the course of employment. There was relationship of employer and employee between respondent-1 and the deceased. The respondent-2 and the deceased were living separately in Adarshanagar, Bijapur, whereas, respondent-1 was residing at Solapur. Since respondent-2 was wholly dependant on the income of her son, she filed claim petition before the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, seeking compensation for the accidental death of her son during the course of his employment. The Commissioner allowed the said claim petition and awarded compensation of rs. 2,74,937/- to respondent-2 and the liability has been fastened on the appellant insurer to indemnify the owner. Hence, the appellant insurer has come up with this appeal.

( 4 ) THE appellant contended that respondent-1 is none other than the husband of respondent-2. Respondent-2 filed a claim petition against her husband for the death of her son in a motor vehicle accident. There is no material placed on record before the commissioner for Workmen's compensation to show that the said Umesh died during the course of employment. No documents have been produced to prove the relationship of employer and employee. Therefore the Commissioner has grossly erred in holding that deceased had sustained injuries in the course of employment. Therefore, he prays that appeal be allowed.

( 5 ) WHILE arguing the case, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Apex Court is Gottumukkala Appala narasimha Raju and Others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2007 ACJ 1025) : (AIR 2007 SC 2907)wherein it was observed that technically, it may be possible that the husband is employed under the wife, but while arriving at a conclusion that when a dispute has been raised by other side, the overall situation should have been taken into consideration. The fact, which speaks for itself shows that the owner of the tractor joined hands with the claimant for laying a claim only against the insurer. The claim was not bona fide.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the admissions made by p. W. 1 - the claimant before the Commissioner, stating that, she has not produced any documents to show that she has taken divorce from her husband and living separately. So also, she has not produced any documents to show that she was residing at Bijapur. But she has stated that for the last three to four years, she is residing at Bijapur in her own house. She has also not produced any salary certificate to show that her son was getting Rupees 3,000/-per month. Therefore, it is argued that the liability fixed on the insurer by the Commissioner is liable to be set aside.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for respondent-2 contended that there is no hard and fast rule that son of the owner of the vehicle should not be a driver working under his father. Admittedly, the vehicle was involved in the accident while carrying some relatives. Respondent No. 1 who is the owner of the vehicle admits that the deceased Umesh was working as a driver under him and he met