JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) - The instant appeal arises from the impugned verdict recorded, by the learned Commissioner, exercising powers under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, (for short the "Commissioner"), whereby, he dismissed the application preferred there before, by the claimants/appellants herein, wherein they sought grant of compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act (for short the "Act"). 2. The claimants-appellants herein, standing aggrieved, by the rendition recorded by the learned Commissioner, hence, concert to assail it, by preferring an appeal therefrom, before this Court. 3. Deceased Sanjay Kumar met his end, in sequel to a collision, which occurred inter se the vehicle driven by him vis-a-vis truck bearing No. HP-114477. When the appeal came up for admission, on 21.09.2010, this Court, admitted the appeal, instituted here before by the claimants/appellants herein, appeal whereof stands directed against the verdict recorded by the learned Commissioner, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether there can be no relationship of employee and employer between father and son who lives separate from each other? 2. Whether income of an individual from different sources not shown in the Income Tax returns can be taken as if he has no such income at all? Substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2. 4. A statutory necessity, is cast upon the claimants, to prove the fact, of the deceased holding a contract of employment with the owner of the relevant vehicle, whereon the deceased was aboard at the relevant time. Though, oral evidence in respect thereto was adduced by the claimants. However, the best evidence in respect thereto, comprised in the owner of the vehicle stepping into the witness box, stood not adduced by the claimants/appellants. The reason for the withholding of the aforesaid best evidence, was contended by the claimants, to arise from the fact of his suffering from paralysis, hence, his being disabled to speak or walk. However, the best evidence in respect thereto, comprised in the owner of the vehicle stepping into the witness box, stood not adduced by the claimants/appellants. The reason for the withholding of the aforesaid best evidence, was contended by the claimants, to arise from the fact of his suffering from paralysis, hence, his being disabled to speak or walk. However, the aforesaid reason assigned by the aforesaid claimants/appellants, for theirs omitting to lead into the witness box, the owner of the vehicle, cannot be accepted, given no evidence, comprised in the medical practitioner concerned authoring a document in respect thereto, standing adduced nor the medical practitioner concerned stepping into the witness box, for proving the aforesaid fact of the owner of the offending vehicle being disabled by paralysis to step into the witness box, for his hence testifying qua his engaging deceased Sanjay Kumar as a driver in the relevant vehicle. Hence, an inference, is fostered that the withholding of respondent No. 1, the owner of the vehicle, as a witness, for testifying qua the relevant factum probandum, arising from the claimants, apprehending qua on his stepping into the witness box, his not supporting their claim reared in the claim petition. In sequel thereof, an adverse inference is to be drawn against the claimants/appellants. 5. Moreover, the communication(s) made in Ex.PW II/A, of the deceased owning a commercial establishment, named and styled as Ashoka Collection Point, located at Akhara Bazar, Kullu, also with the aforesaid exhibit, communicating, of his drawing handsome pecuniary gains, from the aforesaid commercial establishment, does obviously galvanize a conclusion that the deceased would not take to receive any wages, for driving the relevant vehicle owned by his father. Also it would be unnatural, to hence conclude that given the economic well being of the deceased, his opting to receive wages from his father for driving his vehicle. In aftermath, with hence, no contract of employing coming into being inter se the deceased vis-a-vis his father, the owner of the relevant offending vehicle, as such, it is befitting to conclude qua no proof in satiation of the statutory mandate of, the deceased holding a contract of employment with the owner of the relevant vehicle, hence, coming to be adduced by the claimants. Consequently, both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellants. 6. Consequently, both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellants. 6. For the reasons recorded herein above, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned order is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.