Welfare legislation promotes lenient evidentiary standards in establishing employer-employee relationships for compensation.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant is the 2^nd opposite party/ insurance company before the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner. The dependents of one Kuriakose, who died in a motorcycle accident on 03.02.2017, filed the Application for compensation. The motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL 17 J 8464 involved in the accident belonged to the 1^st opposite party and was insured with the 2^nd Opposite party at the time of the accident. According to the applicants, the deceased was working as a supervisor of the 1^st opposite party, who is an agriculturist doing ginger cultivation in different areas; that the 1^st opposite party provided a motorcycle to the deceased for the purpose of the employment; that the accident happened during the course of employment while the deceased was going to Kaippancherry, where the 1^st opposite party was doing ginger cultivation, to supervise the work as per the direction of the 1^st opposite party. The Commissioner found an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the 1^st opposite party. The Commissioner fixed the compensation at Rs.6,65,160/-, based on a monthly wages of Rs.8,000/- and directed the 2^nd opposite party to deposit the compensation with interest at 12% from the date of accident till deposit, along with Rs.8,517/- towards treatment expenses and Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses, finding that the 2^nd opposite party is liable to pay the amounts under Ext.B1 Insurance policy.

2. This appeal was admitted on 21.08.2023 without formulating any substantial question of law.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Rajan P. Kaliyath and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4, Smt. Celine Joseph.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased is admittedly the brother of the 1^st opposite party, who was the owner of the motorcycle. Even though it is alleged that the 1^st opposite party is having ginger cultivation and the deceased was the supervisor of the 1^st opposite party, there is no evidence in support of the same. The Commissioner acted illegally in finding an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the 1^st opposite party. The application was filed in collusion with the 1^st opposite party and this fact is revealed from the written statement of the 1^st opposite party, who supported the case of the applicants. The learned counsel cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inGottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju and Others v. National Insurance Company Limited and Another [(2007) 13 SCC 446] and the decision of this Court inSakkir Husain v. Binu Madhu [ 2025 (1) KLT 481 ] in support of his contentions.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 contended that, considering the evidence available before the Commissioner, the Commissioner has found that there is an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the 1^st opposite party, and there is no perversity in the said finding for interference by this Court. The learned counsel invited my attention to the evidence of AW1. AW1, in her Proof Affidavit, has specifically stated that the 1^st opposite party is having ginger cultivation and the deceased was the supervisor of the 1^st opposite party to whom a motorcycle was provided in connection with the employment. The said fact is not disputed by the 2^nd opposite party while in cross- examination. Hence, the Commissioner was perfectly justified in finding that the 2^nd opposite party is liable to pay the amounts as per the impugned order.

6. I have considered the rival contentions.

7. It is true that the deceased was the brother