Judgment :- 1. These two appeals arise out of the same order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Koppal, in Case No.87/2004 dated 28.12.2004, Appeal in M.F.A.No.1653/2005 is filed by the insurance company. Appeal in M.F.A.No.3370/2005 is filed by the claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. Therefore, these two appeals are heard together. 2. It is the case of the claimant Hanumantha, Son of Yallappa, that he was working as a loader and unloader under Sudhakar Reddy. On 4.12.2003, while discharging his duties as a loader and unloader in the vehicle bearing No.KA-33/1323, he sustained grievous injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver and, therefore, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. He had also filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raichur, in MVC No.20/2004, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn at the instance of the claimant. According to him, the said petition was withdrawn since he could not pursue parallel proceedings. 3. The insurance company contended that there was no master and servant relationship between the claimant and Sudhakar Reddy in whose favour policy has been issued. According to the company, the claimant was a passenger in a tipper, therefore, such risk was not covered under the policy issued by the appellant-insurance company. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal. 4. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation considering the evidence let in by the parties held that there existed master and servant relationship between the claimant and Sudhakar Reddy and that the insurance company has to satisfy the award. Accordingly, he passed an order awarding Rs. 1,14,922/- with interest at 12% per annum. This order is challenged by the insurance company. The claimant has also filed an appeal against the said order seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company taking us through the claim petition filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act submits that before the MACT, Raichur, the claimant had contended that he was travelling in the vehicle along with the goods. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company taking us through the claim petition filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act submits that before the MACT, Raichur, the claimant had contended that he was travelling in the vehicle along with the goods. He also took us through the statement of the claimant recorded by the police on 4.12.2003 at the Government Hospital, Lingsugur, wherein, it is stated by the claimant that on 04.12.2003, he had been to Halabhavi thanda along with one Yamanappa to sell the fish and after selling the fish, they were waiting for a vehicle in order to go to Rodalbanda village; when they were waiting for a vehicle, the tipper vehicle of Sudhakar Reddy came and on their request, the driver allowed them to sit in the tipper vehicle, which later met with an accident. Relying upon the statement given by the complainant before the police in the Hospital and the averments made in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, learned counsel contends that there is no relationship of master and servant and that the claim petition filed by the claimant before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was not maintainable. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant made an attempt to support the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. However, he is not disputing the contents of pleadings in the claim petition filed before the MACT, Raichur and the statement made by the claimant before the police which was recorded at the Government Hospital, Lingsugur. 7. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we have to consider the following points in this appeal. i) Whether there was master and servant relationship between the claimant and Sudhakar Reddy? ii) Whether the claim petition filed by the claimant under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 was maintainable? If so, whether the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is just and proper? 8. The accident is not in dispute. The dispute is, whether the claimant was an employee of Sudhakar Reddy, or was he a passenger in a goods vehicle or was he travelling along with goods as pleaded in the MVC case. The claimant has not disputed the filing of claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming to be the owner of the goods travelling in the vehicle in question. The claimant has not disputed the filing of claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming to be the owner of the goods travelling in the vehicle in question. He has withdrawn the said case with liberty to pursue the petition under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act. But, he is not disputing the statement given before the police in the hospital. In addition to that, the claimant has nowhere stated in the claim petition lodged before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation that he had given a wrong statement before the MACT in the claim petition lodged under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and, similarly, the police have recorded a false statement when he was in the hospital. In other words, the claimant is not disputing the statement recorded by the police and he is also not disputing the contents of his pleadings in MVC case. In addition to that, to prove the relationship of master and servant, he has not placed any material before the Commissioner also. According to him, he is working in a company. A company is bound to maintain records if the claimant was working as a loader and unloader in a company. Therefore, it is difficult for any Court to accept the case pleaded by the claimant at different stages. The Commissioner when considering all these facts has wrongly held that the claimant was an employee of Sudhakar Reddy. When there is no relationship of master and servant, the petition filed by the claimant is required to be dismissed as not maintainable. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that since we are holding that there is no relationship of master and servant and the claim petition lodged by the claimant before the Commissioner is not maintainable, we have to allow the appeal filed by the insurance company and dismiss the claim petition filed by the claimant and, in view of our finding, the appeal filed by the claimant does not survive for consideration. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Koppal, in Case No.87/2004 dated 28.12.2004 is hereby set aside. The claim petition lodged by the claimant before the Commissioner in Case No.87/2004 is hereby dismissed. (ii) Appeal filed by the insurance company in M.F.A.No.1653/2005 is allowed. (iii) Appeal filed by the claimant in M.F.A.No.3370/2005 is dismissed. The claim petition lodged by the claimant before the Commissioner in Case No.87/2004 is hereby dismissed. (ii) Appeal filed by the insurance company in M.F.A.No.1653/2005 is allowed. (iii) Appeal filed by the claimant in M.F.A.No.3370/2005 is dismissed. (iv) In view of the dismissed of the claim petition filed by the claimant before the Commissioner as not maintainable, it is open for the claimant to pursue any other remedy available to him under the law. Amount deposited by the appellant-insurance company is ordered to be refunded to the appellant.