JUDGMENT 1. The insurance Company, fastened with the liability to pay compensation to legal representatives of the deceased, has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Brief facts leading the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are as follows: The respondents 1 and 2 are wife and minor daughter of the deceased Senthil Kumar, who died in an accident, which took place on 2.1.1997. According to them, the deceased Senthil Kumar was working as a Car driver with the third respondent/first opposite party and he was paid Rs. 2,500/- as monthly wages, with daily bata of Rs. 10/-. On 2.1.1997, about 5.15 p.m., when the vehicle bearing Registration No. KLA 9549, owned by the third respondent/first opposite party was driven by the husband of the first respondent, along P.R. Bridge, Vasudeva Nallur, Tirunveli, the car met with an accident and the driver of the vehicle, Senthil Kumar died on the spot. The respondents 1 and 2 have further submitted that the owner of the vehicle, third respondent has insured the above vehicle with the appellant-Insurance Company at the Branch Office, situated at Chinnakadu Kollam and the same was valid upto 26.2.1997. The respondents 1 and 2 have further submitted that the deceased died in an accident which took place, arising out of and in the course of the employment with third respondent/owner of the vehicle. As the owner of the car has insured the vehicle with the appellant-Insurance Company, both the third respondent and the Insurance Company are liable to pay compensation. The respondents 1 and 2 have further submitted that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 28 years and they have claimed compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest. 3. The first opposite party, owner of the vehicle and the father of the deceased, remained ex parte before the Commissioner for Workman’s Compensation. The appellant/second opposite party before the Commissioner of Workman’s Compensation in their objections denied the averments relating to the employment with the third respondent. They also denied the contention that the accident had occurred, arising out of and in the course of employment. The appellant further contended that there is no employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the third respondent and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. They also disputed that the owner of the vehicle has taken an insurance policy covering the vehicle on the date of the accident. The appellant further contended that there is no employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the third respondent and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. They also disputed that the owner of the vehicle has taken an insurance policy covering the vehicle on the date of the accident. Without prejudice to the above. the Compare has further submitted that the insurance Policy was not extended to include any interest/penalty on the insured, on account of their failure to comply with the requirements laid down under the terms and conditions of the insurance Policy and also as per the Workmen’s Compensation. In their additional objections. the appellant has further contended that the deceased Senthil Kumar was driving the car with his family members including his mother met with an accident and died. There is no contract of employment between the deceased and his father/first opposite party. The owner of the vehicle himself did not have the benefit of indemnify and his family members were not covered under the Contract of Insurance. 4. Before the Commissioner for Workmens’ Compensation, the first respondent-wife was examined as C.W.1 and the driver of the first opposite party/third respondent was examined as C.W.2. Exhibit C-1 – Post-mortem certificate, Exhibit C-2 – Driving Licence, Exhibit C-3 – Insurance Policy, Exhibit 4 – Legs’ Notice, Exhibits C-5 and C-6 – Acknowledgment Cards, Exhibit C-7 – Reply from the First Opposite Party and Exhibit C-8 – F.I.R were marked on the side of the claimants/respondents 1 and 2. The Administrative Officer of the appellant-insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibit R-1 – Proposal Form for Motor Policy, Exhibit R-2 – Insurance Policy, Exhibit R-3 – Notice sent to the first opposite party and Exhibit R-4 – Acknowledgment due were marked on the side of the appellant-Insurance Company. 5. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Deputy Commissioner of the Workmen’s Compensation, No. 1, Chennai-6, came to the conclusion that the deceased was an employee of the third respondent and taking into consideration of the minimum wages fixed for drivers as per the Government Order (D).624, Labour and Employment Department, dated 25.5.1995, determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1,957/- per month and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,08,978/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 6. 1,957/- per month and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,08,978/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 6. Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have preferred Cross-Objection No. 27 of 2006. 7. While entertaining this present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration. “(1) Whether under Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1928, the relationship of a son and father would also include the employee and employer relationship to make a claim under Workmen’s Compensation Act in the absence of any documentary evidence? (2) Whether there is any privity of contract of, employment to create the relationship of employer and employee? (3) Whether the appellant-Insurance Company is liable in the absence of any confirmation from the first opposite party regarding the employment of the deceased with him, despite notice from the appellant-Insurance Company calling for the same?” 8. Mr. K. Suryanarayanan, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour has erred in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company, when the deceased Senthil Kumar was not employed as driver of the third respondent and further submitted that he was driving the vehicle only in the capacity as son and not as a workmen of the third respondent. He further submitted that in the absence of any documentary proof regarding the employment of the deceased with the third respondent, there is no employer-employee relationship between them and therefore, the finding of the Commissioner of Labour that the deceased was gainfully employed under the third respondent, is without any acceptable evidence and therefore, it is perverse. 9. Referring to the wilful conduct of third respondent in not appearing before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, coupled with the fact that there was no documentary evidence let in by the claimants/respondents 1 and 2, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a collusion between the third respondent and the claimants, to gain unjust enrichment from the Insurance Company under the guise of projecting a case as if there was a master and servant relationship between the deceased and the third respondent. He further submitted that the Commissioner of Labour has failed to appreciate the evidence of Administrative Officer, R.W.1 and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that when the owner of the vehicle, third respondent having received the notice of the proceedings has failed to furnish the details sought for in Exhibit R-3, with regard to vehicular particulars, muster roll, attendance register, salary wage register etc., the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the owner of the vehicle and therefore, in the absence of proof of employment, the insurance Company cannot be fastened with any liability to pay compensation. 11. Per contra, Mr. U.M. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the deceased was employed as a driver with the third respondent, and in the absence of any rebuttal, the evidence of C.W.1, wife of the deceased has rightly been accepted by the Tribunal for arriving at the conclusion that there was a master and servant relationship between the deceased and the third respondent. Placing reliance en the decision in Manohar Bhimappa More v. Mahadev Bhimappa More and Another 2006 ACJ 850 , learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no inhibition in law for the employment of a member of the family in connection with the employment under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and therefore, having regard to the evidence let in by the wife of the deceased that her husband was employed as driver with her father-in-law, the claimants are entitled to claim compensation. 12. Placing reliance on the decision in Akuia Suryanaraya v. Peddiboina Venkata Mohan 2006 ACJ 1526 , learned counsel for the respondents submitted that for adjudicating the issue as to whether there was employer-employee relationship, proof beyond reasonable doubt like that of a criminal case is not required and when the object of legislation being beneficial, the Court should not expect such a high degree proof for the purpose of awarding compensation to a workman, who sustained personal injury or the dependents of the deceased. As regards quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants relied on an unreported judgment in C.M.A. Nos. As regards quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants relied on an unreported judgment in C.M.A. Nos. 1673 of 2003, dated 6.8.2003 and submitted that if there is no material on record to determine the wages earned by the deceased at the time of accident, the authority can always take the minimum wages as notified by the State Government under the Minimum Wages Act and therefore, the determination of the monthly income of the deceased by the Commissioner for Workman’s Compensation is reasonable. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the materials available on record. 13. C.W.1, wife of the deceased has deposed that after the marriage with the deceased, they were living separately. Her husband was working as a driver for six months and was engaged in Real Estate business along with her father in law, who is the first opposite party before the Commissioner for Workman’s Compensation. She further deposed that her husband used to take the customers to the site for inspection and he was paid a sum of Rs. 2,500/-per month as wages and Rs. 10/- as dally bate. When the vehicle was driven by her husband from Sivakasi to Kollam, it met with an accident and he died on the spot. 14. C.W.2, Natharsha, the driver of the third respondent/first opposite party has deposed that his employer has a electrical shop and was also doing Real Estate business. He has further deposed that his monthly wages is Rs. 3,300/- and that his job is to take the customers to the place of interest of sale/purchase. The witness has further stated that apart from the deceased, nobody knows driving in the family of his employer. On the basis of the oral testimony of the above said witness and Exhibit C-4, Notice and Exhibit P-8 – F.I.R., the Commissioner of Workman’s Compensation has come to the conclusion that the deceased was an employee of the third respondent. 15. Apart from the above oral and documentary evidence, the claimants have not produced any other documentary evidence, such as wage register, salary certificate, Income Tax returns, if any of the Real Estate business, Registration Certificate relating to the Real Estate business, etc. Finding of fact is normally not interfered in the appeal. 15. Apart from the above oral and documentary evidence, the claimants have not produced any other documentary evidence, such as wage register, salary certificate, Income Tax returns, if any of the Real Estate business, Registration Certificate relating to the Real Estate business, etc. Finding of fact is normally not interfered in the appeal. But, if there was no supporting document to prove the employer and employee relationship, whether oral evidence of the claimant alone is sufficient to award compensation in the matter of awarding compensation under the Workman’s Compensation Act, where the claimants have to establish the fact of employment and also the accident that had occurred arising out of and during the course of employment. In the above background, it is necessary to find out as to whether (1) The evidence tendered is legally sufficient to prove that there was any privity of contract between the employer, third respondent /first opposite party and the deceased (2) Whether the death has occurred due to the accident arising out of and in the course of employment. In the absence of any confirmation from the employer about the employment of the deceased or the person who sustained an injury, whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, is yet another question addressed by the appellant-Insurance Company. 16. If the deceased was not actually engaged and there was no casual connection between the employment and the accident, resulting in personal injury/death, should the employer or Insurance Company be liable to pay compensation under Workman’s Compensation Act is the question to be answered. In the above background, it is relevant to go through the contents of Exhibit P8 – FIR. Though Courts have held that FIR is not an encyclopedia to contain all the details, a document produced at the time of enquiry to prove the accident. The mother of the deceased, who is the complainant has stated that they belong to Sivakasi and their family is running a Electrical Shop at Kollam. When the vehicle was driven by her son, Senthil Kumar, it met with an accident resulting in the death of her son on the spot and the inmates sustained injuries. The complainant has further stated that the accident had occurred, when they were returning after attending a function in Sivakasi. 17. When the vehicle was driven by her son, Senthil Kumar, it met with an accident resulting in the death of her son on the spot and the inmates sustained injuries. The complainant has further stated that the accident had occurred, when they were returning after attending a function in Sivakasi. 17. C.W.1, claimant in her deposition, has stated that her father-in-law is running a real estate business in the name and style, Margandavel Real Estate, besides an Electrical Shop at Kollam. She has also reiterated the version of the complainant that the vehicle met with an accident when the family members were returning from Sivakasi after attending a function. Though the said witness, has spoken to a fact of conducting a real estate business, no document has been produced to prove the business and that the same is also not supported by the complainant. Though, the standard of proof which is required to establish the existence of employer and employee relationship, is not of a degree which is required in the criminal case, yet, there must be some supporting evidence to come to the conclusion that her father-in-law was conducting real estate business and that the deceased was gainfully employed, Excepting the sole oral testimony of C.W.1, there is no supporting documentary evidence. The evidence of C.W.2 is also not reliable for the same reason. Even the mother of the deceased has not said anything about the conduct of real estate business at Kollam by her husband. 18. The employer’s liability for compensation under Section 3(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, arises under the following circumstances. The evidence of C.W.2 is also not reliable for the same reason. Even the mother of the deceased has not said anything about the conduct of real estate business at Kollam by her husband. 18. The employer’s liability for compensation under Section 3(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, arises under the following circumstances. “(1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that the employer shall not be so liable – (a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days: (b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death or permanent total disablement, caused by an accident which is directly attributable to - (i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the willful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or (iii) the willful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen.” 19. It is not in dispute that the vehicle had full insurance coverage on the date of accident as evidenced from Exhibit C-3 and that the claimant would be entitled to receive compensation only if they satisfy that there existed (1) a contract of employment of Master and Servant, (2) the death has occurred due to an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. 20. In Manohar Bhimappa More v. Mahade v Bhimappa More and Another (supra), the injured was brother of the owner, who was employed as a coolie in the tractor-traitor at the time of the accident. The owner of the vehicle stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan for purchasing the vehicle. The commissioner dismissed the claim for compensation on the ground that the injured cannot be considered as a workmen. The owner of the vehicle stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan for purchasing the vehicle. The commissioner dismissed the claim for compensation on the ground that the injured cannot be considered as a workmen. Taking into consideration, that in rural areas it is not uncommon to find the practice of oral appointment for specific purpose and time, the Karnataka High Court held that there is no inhibition in law for employment of a member of a family in connection with the tractor-trailer. The Court further observed that in view of the peculiar family relationship, it is absurd to insist on the documentary proof of appointment and the payment of wages by cash as the only mode of consideration for proof of employment. In the above reported case, the injured was employed as a coolie for agricultural purpose in the rural area and considering the nature of employment and the relationship, the Court held that the documentary proof of appointment cannot be insisted upon. The said judgment cannot be applied as a preposition of law in every case, where there is only an oral evidence of employer-employee relationship. If the contention of the petitioner has to be accepted as a matter of course, de hors the standard of proof required to establish the employer and employee relationship, which depends upon the nature of work, maintenance of employment roster, payment register, appointment order and such other documents to prove employment, then it would pave way to even false claims, there will be anomalous situation. Therefore, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the claimants is not applicable to the facts of this case. 21. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Another AIR 2007 SC 248 : (2007) 7 MLJ 615 : 2007-I-LLJ-474 : 2007 (2) LW 858 , at Paragraphs 23, 36, 38 and 40 the Supreme Court held as follows at p. 620 to 623 of MLJ: “26. There is a crucial link between the casual connection of employment with death. Factual link with evidence cannot be a matter of surmise or conjecture. If a finding is arrived at without pleading or legal evidence the statutory authority-will commit a jurisdictional error while exercising, jurisdiction. 39. There is a crucial link between the casual connection of employment with death. Factual link with evidence cannot be a matter of surmise or conjecture. If a finding is arrived at without pleading or legal evidence the statutory authority-will commit a jurisdictional error while exercising, jurisdiction. 39. Unless evidence is brought on record to elaborate that the death by way of cardiac arrest has occurred because of stress or strain, the. Commissioner would net have jurisdiction to grant damages, In other words, the claimant was bound to prove jurisdictional fact before the Commissioner. Unless such jurisdictional facts are found, the Commissioner will have no jurisdiction to pass an order. It. is now well-settled that for arriving at a finding of a jurisdictional fact, reference to any precedent would not be helpful as a little deviation from the fact of a decided case or an additional fact may make a let of difference by arriving at a correct conclusion. For the said purpose, the statutory authority is required to pose unto himself the right question. 41. A jurisdictional question will involve a substantial question of law. A finding of fact arrived at without there being any evidence would also give rise to a substantial question of law. From the order passed by the Commissioner, it appears, he has not arrived at a finding that the job involved any stress or strain...............there has to be an proximate nexus between cause of death and employment. A stray statement’ made by Appellant that the deceased had died while working in the vehicle and stress or strain of the work did not appear to have any foundation. Admittedly she was not present at the spot. She had also no personal knowledge. All these facts she had admitted in cross-examination. 43. On a question of law would arise when the same is not dependent upon examination of evidence, which may not require any fresh investigation of fact. A question of law would, however, arise when the finding is perverse in the sense that no legal evidence was brought on record or jurisdictional facts were not brought on record.” 22. 43. On a question of law would arise when the same is not dependent upon examination of evidence, which may not require any fresh investigation of fact. A question of law would, however, arise when the finding is perverse in the sense that no legal evidence was brought on record or jurisdictional facts were not brought on record.” 22. The oral statement of C.W.1 that her father-in-law was conducting real estate business and that the deceased was employed by him is not supported by any documentary evidence and in the absence of any confirmation, from the third respondent/first opposite party regarding the employment of the deceased, this Court, is of the view that the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation has not analysed the evidence on record properly, and has committed a jurisdictional error that there is a privity of contract between the deceased and the third respondent/first opposite party. 23. Therefore, 1 am of the considered view that in the absence of any legal evidence, the finding of the Commissioner for Workman’s Compensation that the deceased was an employee of the third respondent/first opposite party is purely on surmises and conjectures. As a general preposition of Law, there is no inhibition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for a son to be employed in the business of his father, but the same has to be proved by sufficient documentary evidence and it depends upon the nature of business also. 24. Even assuming for argument sake that the claimant has discharged the burden of establishing that there was a privity of contract between the deceased and the third respondent/first opposite party, the claimants have to prove that there was a casual connection between the injury /death, the accident and the work done in the course in the employment. 25. In a leading case of Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Francies De Costa 1996-II-LLJ-34 , the Supreme Court considered a case whether an injury sustained by an employee by road accident, while he was on his way to his place of employment could be termed as “employment injury” arising out of and in the course of employment, in the reported case, the accident took place at 4.15 p.m., one kilometre away from the factory, while he was on his way to his place of employment and he was hit by a lorry belonging to his employer. The dispute was whether the injury amounts to “employment injury”, within the meaning of Section 2(18) , so as to enable the employee to claim the benefit under the Employee’s State Insurance Act, 1948. The Supreme Court held that, the employee in order to succeed in the claim will have to prove that the injury that he has suffered arose out of and was in the course of employment. The conditions set out in Section 3 of the Act have to be fulfilled before the employee could claim any benefit under the Act. On the facts of the reported case, the Apex Court held that that the injury suffered by the employee was not in the course of employment and allowed the appeal filed by the State Insurance Corporation. 26. The Supreme Court after tracing the meaning of the words, “arising out of” and “in the course of employment”, at paragraph 5 of the judgment held that a road accident may happen anywhere at anytime. But such accident cannot be said to have arisen out of an employment, unless it can be shown that the employee was doing something incidental to his employment. At paragraph 29 of the judgment, the Apex Court held that the principles laid down in the above case, are instructive and should be borne in mind in dealing with cases, where claim for compensation is made by an employee. The Court laid down the broad principles that in order to succeed, it has to be proved by the employee that; (1) there was an accident 2) the accident had a causal connection with the employment; and 3) the employee must have suffered injury in the course of employment. 27. In the instant case, the evidence let in by C.W.1, claimant and the contents of Exhibit P8, FIR, given by the mother of the deceased amply prove that, the vehicle was driven by the husband of the deceased, when the family members were returning Sivakasi after attending a family function. The accident is proved, but there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the accident had a casual connection with the employment of the deceased. 28. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The Cross-Objection filed by the claimants is dismissed. The accident is proved, but there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the accident had a casual connection with the employment of the deceased. 28. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The Cross-Objection filed by the claimants is dismissed. It is seen from the records, this Court, in C.M.P.No.12969 of 2001, dated 21.9.2001, has granted permission to the first respondent/claimant to withdraw 50% of the award amount. Considering the lapse of time, that the accident has taken in the year 1997, which culminated into an award in 1998 and the pendency of the litigation for a considerable time, this Court is of the view that it may not be necessary to issue any direction for refund of the said amount from the widow, who lost her bread earner. No costs. Civil miscellaneous appeal allowed.