Claims for compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act require credible evidence supporting the employer-employee relationship, with familial ties alone deemed insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

S.MANU, J.

M.F.A.(ECC)No.86/2024 is filed by the second opposite party (insurer) in E.C.C.No.88/2018 of the Employees Compensation Commissioner and Industrial Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram aggrieved by granting of compensation to the 1^st respondent/applicant. M.F.A.(ECC)No.14/2025 is filed by the applicant in the E.C.C. aggrieved by limiting of interest for the medical reimbursement from the date of filing of the claim petition. Hereafter the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in M.F.A.(ECC)No.86/2024.

2. The 1^st respondent met with an accident on 5.6.2013 while he was driving a private car owned by the 2^nd respondent. He suffered serious injuries and is now bedbound. He filed the compensation case through his mother acting as the power of attorney holder. The 2^nd respondent is the sister-in-law of the 1^st respondent.

3. Husband of the 2^nd respondent is the elder brother of the 1^st respondent. On 5.6.2013 around mid-night, the 1^st respondent was driving the private car owned by the 2^nd respondent from Thiruvananthapuram to Kanjiramkulam. The brother of the 1^st respondent had parked the car in the railway station. The 1^st respondent was bringing back the vehicle to Kanjiramkulam. On the way, the car dashed against a wall and was capsized. A relative of the 1^st respondent who travelled with him died in the accident. The 1^st respondent sustained very serious injuries.

4. Claiming that the 1^st respondent was employed as a driver by the 2^nd respondent for a monthly remuneration of Rs.9,000/- at the time of accident, the 1^st respondent moved the Employees Compensation Commissioner under the provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 . It is to be noted that though the accident occurred in 2013, case was filed only in 2018.

5. Mother of the 1^st respondent was examined as PW1.Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the 1^st respondent. Second respondent was examined as DW1. Exts.B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the appellant. Exts.B6 and B7 were marked on the side of the 2^nd respondent. Attested copy of case sheet of the Medical College Hospital was marked as Ext.X1. The appellant insurance company disputed the employer-employee relationship between the respondents 1 and 2 in its written objection. According to the company, the 1^st respondent, the younger brother of the husband of the 2^nd respondent, had driven the vehicle on the date of accident not as a paid employee. The company contended that the claim regarding the employer- employee relationship was raised without bonafides only to obtain compensation under the provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 .

6. The learned Commissioner, on evaluating the evidence and contentions of the parties concluded that there was employer-employee relationship. The Commissioner granted compensation of Rs.10,48,656/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident till realization of the amount. As costs, Rs.2,100/- was granted. Further, the Commissioner held that the 1^st respondent was entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs.859355.67 with simple interest of 12% from the date of filing of the case, i.e., 29.1.2018 to the date of payment of the amount.

7. M.F.A.(ECC)No.86/2024 was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

Whether there is any perversity in the finding of the Commissioner in finding an employer-employee relationship between the applicant and the First Opposite Party when the vehicle involved is a private car and the applicant is the brother of the husband of the First Opposite Party?

8. M.F.A.(ECC)No.14/2025 was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

Whether the appellant is entitled to clai