Judgment 1. The National Insurance Company disputes its liability as well as quantum of compensation. 2. In spite of service of notice, the respondents remained ex-parte. In the circumstances, taking into account the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the materials on record and the impugned order, we shall dispose of this appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that in the F.I.R., it is stated by one Sundaram that the Claimant/1st respondent has been employed under him. There is no employer-employee relationship between the claimant and the insured Venkatesan/2nd respondent. Therefore, the basic liability sought to be fixed on Venkatesan goes away. So, the insurer cannot be asked to indemnify. So, the claim against the company must fail. 4. On 19.7.2002, the claimant had driven a vehicle and had to dash against a stationed lorry and sustained multiple injuries. He claimed compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act. Before the Commissioner, unfortunately, Venkatesan/2nd respondent/insured remained ex-parte. 5. Ex.P.1 is the First Information Report. One Sundaram reported the accident to police and the injured was his employee. Neither, Sundaram nor Venkatesan has been examined before the Commissioner. So in that event, there was handicap. But that has not handicapped the Commissioner in deciding the matter based on the materials produced. 6. It has been pleaded by the Claimant before the Commissioner that Venkatesan is his employer and Sundaram is his partner. The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that no partnership deed has been produced. 7. It is not the plea of the claimant that the partnership pleaded is evidenced by a written document. Two or more persons purchasing a lorry and orally doing the lorry business in partnership is not uncommon. A vehicle may stand in 'X's name, 'Y' would do the lorry business in association with 'X'. It is not that the business of partnership in all cases should be evidenced by a partnership deed. Under certain circumstances, such relationship may be implied by the facts and circumstances of the case. There are instances of partnership business in association with others by oral understanding. Such also may be the case before us. In the circumstances, employer-employee relationship can be imputed as between the Claimant and Venkatesan. 8. Admittedly, the vehicle stands in the name of Venkatesan. In the RTO records, his name figures. In the Insurance Policy, his name figures. There are instances of partnership business in association with others by oral understanding. Such also may be the case before us. In the circumstances, employer-employee relationship can be imputed as between the Claimant and Venkatesan. 8. Admittedly, the vehicle stands in the name of Venkatesan. In the RTO records, his name figures. In the Insurance Policy, his name figures. In such circumstances, Venkatesan is bound to pay the compensation amount and the insurer is bound to indemnify him. Taking into account the evidence and applying the Minimum Wages Standards and the evidence of P.W.2 Doctor accepting the disability at 25%, the Commissioner had determined the disability compensation at Rs.1,900,99/-. It is not excessive. It is reasonable. In the light of the above, I concur with the decision of the Commissioner. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act. Since the entire amount has been deposited, the 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount, less amount, if any, already withdrawn. No costs.