A.M. Basheer Ahamed, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the order and decree, dated 15.12.2011, in W.C.No.295 of 2007, passed by the Commissioner for Workman Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul.

2. The appellant herein is the claimant/petitioner in W.C.No.295 of 2007, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, camp at Karur and the first respondent herein is the owner of the vehicle/Fiat Uno Car, bearing Registration No.TN-27-K-5518 and the 2nd respondent is admittedly the insurer of the above said car, during the date of accident, which occurred on 23.09.2007.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the appellant/petitioner was under employment of R1 and was driving the above said car. The said car unfortunately dashed with a tree and as a result of which, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in his right eye and face and also over all body and in view of the accident, the petitioner has lost his right side eye and he was permanently disabled and hence, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident.

4. The vehicle owner/R1 was set ex-parte before the Competent Authority/Deputy Commissioner of Labour and also in this appeal. The 2nd respondent/insurer alone contested the case by filing a counter before the Authority. After hearing both parties and the evidence adduced by the claimant, the Competent Authority/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, dismissed the claim of the appellant herein holding that the appellant/claimant was sustained injuries in the accident when he was not in the course of employment under the first respondent and he sustained injuries on his own accord.

5. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the appellant/claimant has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/insurer would contend that the appellant has not working before the first respondent and also the injuries sustained by the appellant was not arising out of his employment under the first respondent. On perusal of the records, the petitioner got Ex.A8/Licence for LMV Non-transport vehicle, issued on 22.09.2006 and it is valid upto 15.04.2011 and the Insurance Policy/Ex.A6 was issued in the name of the first respondent, for the period from 15.02.2007 to 14.02.2008 in respect of the vehicle/Car, bearing Registration No.TN-27-K-5518 and the accident occurred 23.09.2007 and the said Insurance Policy was in force on the date of the accident. Xerox copy of the certificate of registration for the above said vehicle was produced as Ex.A5, which was transferred to the first respondent with effect from 27.12.2001 and hence, the first respondent is the owner of the vehicle even on the date of accident.

7. Appellant/claimant did not prove the fact by filing any documents to show that he was working as a driver under the employment of the first respondent and he was drawing a salary of Rs.6000/- per month, even at the time of accident. The 2nd respondent contended in his counter that the first respondent is in active collusion with the petitioner in respect of the claim of compensation. The first respondent did not contest the claim before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul and also in this appeal and he was set ex-partie. No evidence was produced, except the oral evidence of P.W.1, to show that he was under the employment of R1 and the accident took place in the course of employment of the first respondent.

8. Appellant/claimant relied Ex.A1/FIR registered on the basis of the statement obtained on 26.01.2007 from one Angamuthu/Astrologist, while he was under treatment in a private hospital viz., Ganga Hospital at Coimbatore alleging the manner of the accident in which the informant and also the petitioner/claimant were injured due to the accident as per FIR. It is alleged that the informant was aske