The employer-employee relationship must be evidenced by credible documentation, but reliable testimonies can uphold claims for compensation in accident cases.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU WEDNESDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 29TH MAGHA, 1947 MFA (ECC) NO.76 OF 2023 AGAINST ORDER DTD.29.9.2022 IN ECC.No.526/2016 (W.C.C.No.117/2008)ON THE FILE OF THE COURTS OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, (INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL), THRISSUR APPELLANT/ 2 n d OPPOSITE PARTY IN ECC:

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AMBIKA ARCADE, M.G. ROAD, THRISSUR – 680001, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER (LEGAL), KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDINGS, JEWS STREET, KOCHI, PIN – 682035.

BY ADVS.

SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR SMT.P.K.RESHMA (KALARICKAL)

SRI.S.RAJEEV (K/001711/2019)

SRI.SHAIJU GEORGE SMT.SAJANA V.H RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & 1 s t OPPOSITE PARTY IN ECC:

1 SHIBU.J.CHIRAMMEL @ SHIBU, S/O JOSEPH @ JOSE, CHIRAMMEL HOUSE, CHAKYARKADAVU, KODANNUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680563.

2 PAULSON P.T.

S/O THOMAS, POOPADI HOUSE, VELUTHOOR P.O, ARIMPOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680012.

BY ADVS.

R1 BY SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN R2 BY SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR THIS MFA (ECC) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.02.2026, THE COURT ON 18.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

S.MANU, J.

--------------------------------------------------

M.F.A.(ECC).No.76 of 2023 -------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2026

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed by the 2^nd opposite party in E.C.C No.526 of 2016 on the file of the Employees Compensation Commissioner, Thrissur. The 1^st respondent approached the Commissioner seeking compensation for injuries sustained in an accident occurred on 01.06.2007. The 1^st respondent contended that he was employed as driver of an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-8-H-471, owned by the 2^nd respondent. On 01.06.2007, he was driving the vehicle and met with an accident. He was taken to Mother Hospital, Thrissur and was treated as in-patient from 01.06.2007 to 16.06.2007. Subsequently also, for some other periods he was admitted to the hospital and underwent treatment. He stated that the accident occurred out of the employment and during the course of employment under the 2^nd respondent. The vehicle had valid insurance coverage. The appellant had issued motor vehicle policy on 01.12.2006 covering the employees also.

2. Before the Commissioner, the appellant as well as the

2^nd respondent denied the employer - employee relationship claimed by the 1^st respondent. The appellant contended that there was no employer – employee relationship and the claim was bogus. The 2^nd respondent contended that the vehicle was sold by him to another person by a Sale Agreement dated 21.07.2005 and the accident occurred after two years from the date of the sale agreement. He contended that he never employed the 1^st respondent as a driver in the vehicle.

3. The 1^st respondent got himself examined as AW1.

Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the 1^st respondent. The 2^nd respondent was examined as RW1. Exhibit R1 was marked on his side. The appellant got Exhibit R2, a copy of the policy marked. Medical Board report was taken on record as Exhibit X1.

4. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Commissioner concluded that the case of the 1^st respondent that he was an employee of the 2^nd respondent was more probable and reliable. Therefore, the Commissioner held that there was employer – employee relationship between the respondents. Since the company had no quarrel about the insurance coverage, compensation granted was directed to be deposited by the appellant.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as also the respective learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and

2.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the challenge in this appeal is confined to the finding regarding employer – employee relationship. He submitted that “whether the finding of the Commissioner regarding employer – employee relationship is legally sustainable” is the substantial question of law sought to be answered by this Court in this appeal. The learned Coun