The appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act is limited to substantial questions of law, and findings of fact by the Commissioner cannot be re-evaluated.

Order :

(MANEESH SHARMA, J.)

1. Present appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the judgment dated 27.09.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, Ajmer and Judge, Labour and Industrial Tribunal, Camp Beawar in case No. ECA(F) 131/2015, whereby the claim application filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal after the claimant filed application before the Commissioner, Workman Compensation Act while stating that deceased Ashok Kumar was working as driver under the employment of Nimba Nath(respondent No.1) driving his Tractor bearing No.RJ-01-R-2915).

3. It is further stated that on 24.10.2004 deceased was discharging his duties as driver and while discharging his duties he met with an accident and sustained injuries and later on he expired. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to seek compensation of Rs.5,42,275/- as per the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act.

4. Respondent No.2 filed reply to the claim petition while stating that deceased was driving his own tractor and no relationship of employer and employee could be established and it was further urged that the insurance policy has been obtained by concealing the ownership documents, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to make any compensation.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner, Workman Compensation Act framed following issues:-

^^1- vk;k e`rd Jh v'kksd dqekj jkoy vizkFkhZ la- 1 ds fu;kstu ,oa fu;a=.k esa cgSfl;r pkyd ds in ij okgu VªsDVj ua- vkj-ts- 01 vkj 2915 ij fn- 24-10-2004 dks dk;Z djrs gq, ,oa fu;kstu ds nkSjku ?kfVr nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k e`R;q dkfjr gqvk \ 

2- vk;k e`rd Jh v'kksd dqekj jkoy dh oDr nq?kZVuk vk;q iPphl o"kZ Fkh ,oa ekfld osru :i;s ikap gtkj Fkk \

3- vk;k oDr nq?kZVuk okgu VªsDVj uacj vkj-ts- 01 vkj 2915 ds pkyd ds ikl oS/k o izHkkoh MªkbZfoax ykblsal Fkk \ 

4- vk;k fd izkFkhZx.k Dyse izkFkZuk i= esa of.kZr {kfriwfrZ izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS \ ;fn gka rks fdlls ,oa fdruh jkf'k \

5- vU; vuqrks"k^^

6. In order to substantiate the pleas and averments of the claim, the claimant Indira examined herself as AW-1 and produced documents Ex.1 to Ex.8.

7. The Insurance company in order to convert the averments of the claim petition and the evidence so adduced examined NAW-1 Gajanand Khatik and produced documents Ex.NA1 to Ex. NA6.

8. After hearing arguments of both parties the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act has arrived at a conclusion that deceased-Ashok Kumar was owner of the tractor- in-question and he cannot be said to be working as a driver under the employment of Nimbanath and in the absence of any proof about the relationship between the appellant and Nimbanath, the legal representatives of the deceased-Ashok Kumar are not entitled to claim any compensation.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act committed perversity while dismissing the claim petition as the vehicle was insured and legal representatives of the deceased-Ashok Kumar are entitled to get the compensation as deceased was working under the employment of Nimbanath as a driver.

10. Heard learned counsel for the claimants and perused the record.

11. From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that the deceased-Ashok Kumar himself was owner of the vehicle, therefore, it cannot be said that he was driver under the employment of Nimbanath and claimants are failed to prove the factum of relationship of employer and employee between the deceased-Ashok Kumar and Nimbanath. While going through the record of the case, it is also evident that claimants have admitted the fact that earlier claim petition was filed under the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal but intentionally the appellants have not placed any document in this behalf. Therefore, adverse inference is drawn against the appellants.

12. From the totality of facts and circumstances, it is clear that the appellant has failed to prove the relationship of the employer and e