The court upheld that a claim for compensation requires sufficient evidence of employer-employee relationship, which was lacking.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed by the applicants in E.C.C.No.45 of

2017 of the Court of Employees' Compensation Commissioner (Industrial Tribunal), Thrissur. Appellants 1 and 2 are respectively the wife and daughter of late Sadanandan. He met with an accident at about 5.45 p.m on 26.07.2014 while driving auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.KL 8/AZ 7673 through Shornur Road. The vehicle overturned and he sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as an inpatient in a hospital from 26.07.2014 to 05.08.2014. He became permanently incapacitated on account of the injury sustained in the accident. Claiming that he was employed by the 1^st respondent, the E.C.C was filed for compensation. It is to be noted that the 1^st respondent is none other than the son of late Sadanandan and the 1^st appellant.

2. Though notice was issued, only the Insurance Company entered appearance and the 1^st respondent, son of the deceased and the 1^st appellant was absent and set ex parte. On 20.08.2023, during the pendency of the application before the Commissioner, Shri.Sadanandan expired.

3. The 2^nd appellant was examined as AW1 and Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the appellants. The doctor who issued disability certificate was examined as AW2 and auto rickshaw driver was examined as AW3. No witness was examined on the side of the 2^nd opposite party. Ext.R1, copy of the policy was marked on the side of the 2^nd opposite party. The learned Commissioner framed the following issues:

“1. Whether there was any employer-employee relationship between the first opposite party and the first applicant as on the date and time of accident?

2. If the first issue is found in favour of the applicants, whether the first applicant sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under the first opposite party?

3. If the first and second issues are found in favour of the applicants, whether the opposite parties are liable to pay the legal heirs of the first applicant compensation, interest, etc.?

4. If found liable what is the quantum of compensation, percentage of interest liable to be paid by the opposite parties to the legal heirs of the first applicant?

5. Orders as to costs?”

4. On issues 1 to 3, the learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that there was no evidence to prove the employer - employee relationship between the deceased and the 1^st respondent. It was also found that it cannot be concluded that the injury sustained by the deceased had arisen out of and in the course of his alleged employment under the 1^st respondent. As the first two issues were found against the applicants, the remaining issues were not considered.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent – Insurance Company.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Commissioner failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective and the conclusion that there was no employer - employee relationship is erroneous. He hence submitted that a substantial question of law is involved as to whether the finding with regard to the employer - employee relationship is legally sustainable. The learned counsel made reference to the evidence of AWs 1 and 3. He submitted that the 2^nd appellant who was examined as AW1 had clearly stated that the deceased was employed by the 1^st respondent son, working abroad. She deposed that the deceased used to deposit the amounts collected in a society and the deceased had told her that the 1^st respondent was paying Rs.12,000/- per month as wages to him. The learned counsel therefore submitted that there was ample evidence to show that the deceased was employed by the 1^st