Judgment 1. Challenging the Award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul in W.C.No.163 of 2004, the Insurance Company has filed the appeal. 2. The first respondent instituted a case before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-contending that when he was working as a driver in the Auto bearing Reg.No.TN-57-9682, belonging to the 2nd respondent, he met with an accident on 20.10.2001 and he sustained injuries on the head and thereafter, he could not do his normal duty. 3. Resisting the petition, the appellant Insurance Company filed counter disputing the claim made by the first respondent and specifically contending that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent. 4. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation relying upon the evidence of the claimant has held that the claimant sustained injuries in the course of employment, so he is entitled to compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act and awarded Rs.89,386/- along with interest at 12%. Aggrieved by the award, the Insurance company has filed the appeal. 5. Heard Mr.R.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner has erred in holding that there was a relationship of employer and employee between the owner and the claimant; that Exs.P2 and P3 would prove that both are blood brothers and therefore, the question of employer and employee does not arise in this case. 7. The appellant has questioned the Award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on the only ground that there was no relationship of employer and employee and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation under Workmen Compensation Act. Ex.P2, Driving Licence issued by the Assistant Licencing Authority, Dindigul would show that the claimant was having a licence to drive transport vehicle and a badge endorsement was also made in the driving licence. Ex.P3 Registration Certificate of the Auto, bearing Reg.No.TN-57-9682 would prove that on the date of accident, the 2nd respondent Ramakrishnan was the owner of the vehicle and he had taken an Insurance Policy, Ex.P5 for the Auto and the vehicle had coverage of Insurance on the date of accident. Ex.P7 is the wound certificate and the Ex.P8 is the X-ray. Ex.P3 Registration Certificate of the Auto, bearing Reg.No.TN-57-9682 would prove that on the date of accident, the 2nd respondent Ramakrishnan was the owner of the vehicle and he had taken an Insurance Policy, Ex.P5 for the Auto and the vehicle had coverage of Insurance on the date of accident. Ex.P7 is the wound certificate and the Ex.P8 is the X-ray. Evidence of P.W.3 Dr.Vijayakumaran and Ex.P9 Disability Certificate would prove that the claimant had sustained 24% disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident. 8. Even though Ex.P3 shows that the 2nd respondent Ramakrishnan S/o.Narayanan is the owner of the vehicle and as per Ex.P2, the claimant is S/o.Narayanan, no other materials produced by the appellant Insurance Company to show that there was no relationship of employer and employee. Even assuming that they are blood brothers, there is no legal bar for the claimant to work under his brother to earn for his livelihood. 9. In the case on hand, the claimant has established through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.P2 and P3 that the claimant was working as driver under the 2nd respondent on the date of accident and he sustained in the course of employment. In view of the abundant evidence available on record, the only contention of the appellant that the claimant has not proved the relationship of employer and employee, cannot be countenanced. In view of my findings supra, I find no merit in the appeal. 10. In the result, the Award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner on Labour, Dindigul, in W.C.No.163 of 2014, is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.