In a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the claimant must establish an employer-employee relationship and that the accident occurred during the course of employment.

G.M. Akbar Ali, J.

The claimant is the appellant. He has filed a claim petition under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act before the Deputy Com- missioner of Labour, Madurai, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the course of his employment.

2. According to the claimant, he was a driver of a Tata Sumo, bearing registration No. TN 67-W 9068, which belongs to the respondent No. 1. On 14.11.2002, when he was driving the vehicle from south to north in Nagamangalam village, Madurai-Trichy Main Road, he lost control of the vehicle and dashed against the tamarind tree, due to which he sustained fracture over the right ankle and also injuries all over the body. Though he was given treatment, he suffered permanent disability. He filed a claim petition against the respondent No. 1 stating that he was the employee under respondent No. 1 and also against the respondent No. 2, insurance company.

3. However, the respondent No. 1 has filed a counter stating that he is not the owner of the vehicle and employer of the claimant. According to the respondent No. 1, he had sold the vehicle to one Alaguraj, who happened to be the brother of the claimant, as early as on 28.2.2002 and delivered the vehicle. He took a specific plea that he was not the employer of the claimant.

4. The insurance company has also contested the claim stating that at the time of accident, respondent No. 1 was not the employer and the sale and delivery of the vehicle was not intimated to the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai. The claimant as well as the respondent No. 1 and one Subramanian from the insurance company were examined.

5. The respondent No. 1 has produced documents showing that the vehicle was sold and delivered to the said Alaguraj as early as February 2002. The learned Commissioner found that the vehicle was sold as early as 28.2.2002 and, therefore, on the date of accident, i.e., on 14.11.2002 he was not the owner of the vehicle and the claimant was not the employee under him. Therefore, the claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by which, the appellant is before this court.

6. Mr. G. Marimuthu, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that at the time of accident, the vehicle stood in the name of the respondent No. 1 and the insurance policy is also in the name of the respondent No. 1. As per law, there is no transfer of title and the policy was subsisting and, therefore, respondent No. 1 is the owner of the vehicle and the claimant was employee under him.

7. On the contrary, Mr. V. Perumal, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, submitted that the respondent No. I was abroad at the time of accident and he has produced all the documents to show that there was effective sale and delivery of the vehicle.

8. Mr. S. Srinivasa Raghavan, the learned counsel for the insurance company, would submit that at the time of accident, the respondent No. 1 was not the owner of the vehicle as well as the employer and, therefore, the claim will not stand.

9. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

10. The claimant has filed a claim petition stating that he was employed under the respondent No. 1 and in the course of employment, the accident had taken place. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, at the time of accident, the registration of the vehicle was with the respondent No. I and the insurance policy was also in the name of the respondent No. 1. As far as the liability is concerned, the insurance company has to indemnify the owner in case of any liability fastened on the respondent No. 1. However, in a case of claim before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it is incumbent on the claimant to prove that on the date of accident, there was an employer and employee relationship and the accident had occurred during the course of employment. The claimant is none other than the brother of the said Alaguraj, who is said to hav