Rajan Gupta, J. - (1.) PRESENT appeal is directed against the award passed by the Authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act whereby claim application filed by the appellants has been dismissed. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the authority below has wrongly dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants on the ground that owner of the vehicle in question i.e. respondent No. 2 is real brother of deceased Bijender.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the authority below has rightly dismissed the claim application of the appellants as they failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding employment of deceased with respondent No. 1. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Claim was lodged by legal representatives of one Bijender @ Billu who died in an accident which took place on 13th September, 2008. In order to prove their claim, appellant Anju examined herself as A.W.1. In cross -examination she denied the fact that her husband was not employed as driver on the car of respondent No. 1. She also denied that wages paid to her husband were Rs. 5,000 per month. She further stated that she has no documentary proof regarding employment of her husband with respondent No. 1. She admitted that she had filed a claim case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Raj Kumar respondent No. 1 deposed as R.W.1 that he had an Alto car bearing No. HR -60A -6820. Deceased was his younger brother. He tried to support the case of the appellants by saying that deceased was employed as driver with him and he used to pay him salary of Rs. 5,200. In cross -examination, however, this witness has admitted that deceased had gone to see their relatives along with family members and it was in his knowledge. The Authority came to the conclusion that applicants have failed to prove that Bijender since deceased, was employed as driver by respondent No. 1. The applicants also failed to produce any documentary evidence or proof that deceased was paid salary for driving car of respondent No. 1. In this way the applicants failed to prove the relationship of master and servant between respondent No. 1 and the deceased. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 is in Government job. I find no ground to interfere in the findings arrived at by the authority below. The appellants have failed to prove relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and respondent No. 1 owner of the vehicle. Appeal is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.;