JUDGMENT : B. Manohar, J. 1. The IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 6-2-2009 made No. WCA/NF/102/2008 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Haveri (hereinafter referred to as "the WCC for short). The first respondent herein filed a claim petition contending that he was working as a driver in a vehicle bearing registration No. KA-27/A-47 belonging to the second respondent herein. On 21-2-2008, as per the instructions of the owner of the vehicle, while he was proceeding on Bisalahalli-Devaragudda Road, in view of the bad condition of the road, the vehicle met with an accident and turned turtle. Due to the impact, the driver of the said vehicle sustained fracture of 5th and 6th ribs of right side, fracture of lumbosacral spine of L-5 vertebra and other parts of the body. He had taken treatment in the Private Hospital at Ranebennur. he claimed that the owner of the vehicle was paying him salary of Rs. 4,500/- p.m., and batta of Rs. 50/- per day. In view of the fracture he has sustained in the accident, he cannot do the work of driver and sought for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 2. In pursuance of the notice issued by the WCC, the appellant-Insurance Company filed written statement and disputed the relationship of master and servant between the claimant and owner of the vehicle and contended that owner of the vehicle is none other than the brother of claimant. There is no relationship of master and servant between them and hence the insurer is not liable to compensate the claimant. Further, the claimant was carrying more passengers than the capacity of vehicle violating the conditions of the policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to compensate the claimant. 3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the WCC held that the claimant has sustained injuries during the course and out of employment. Though the owner of vehicle is the brother of claimant, there is no bar for he becoming the employee of his elder brother. The claimant falls under the provisions of Section 2(1)(n) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. The with regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, in view of three fractures sustained by the claimant, the doctor assessed the disability to an extent of 50% to the whole body. The claimant falls under the provisions of Section 2(1)(n) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. The with regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, in view of three fractures sustained by the claimant, the doctor assessed the disability to an extent of 50% to the whole body. Hence, the WCC taking into consideration income of the claimant as Rs. 4,000/- p.m., taking 60% thereof, applying the relevant factor 213.57 as the claimant was aged about 27 years at the time of the accident, taking into consideration functional disability to an extent of 40% awarded compensation of Rs. 2,05,027/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of the judgment and order. Since the Insurance Policy covers the risk of the driver working in the lorry and the driver having effective driving licence to driver the vehicle, liability was fastened on the Insurance Company to compensate the claimant. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order, oral and documentary evidence and other relevant records. Though the appellant disputed the relationship of master and servant between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle, there is no bar for the younger brother to be a driver or employee under his elder brother. The Insurance Company cannot escape from their liability to compensate the claimant. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment in the case of United India Assurance Company Limited v K.M. Poovanna 2012 Kar. MAC 265 (SC), held that even though the vehicle was carrying more passengers, the Insurance Company has to compensate the driver who has sustained injuries in the accident. I find no infirmity or irregularity in the judgment and order passed by the WCC. The appellant has not made out a case to interfere with the judgment and order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit before this Court is directed to be transferred to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haveri for disbursement.