JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. None appears for the appellant when the matter is called. Order sheets show that none appeared when the matter was called on 26.02.2019. Heard Mr. G. Bordoloi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. 2. By this appeal, the order dated 30.08.2006 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner cum Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Bongaigaon in Case No.WC 08/2002 has been assailed. In the claim, a compensation of Rs.3,55,000/- was sought for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a vehicular accident that took place on 24.10.2002. According to the claimant, he was employed as a driver of the truck bearing registration No.AS-18/1350 and was paid a salary of Rs.3000/- per month and that he had worked in the vehicle as a driver for about 1 1/2 years. According to the claimant, while he was returning from Kolkata while discharging his duties as a driver of the vehicle, he had stopped the vehicle on 24.10.2002 at about 7 p.m as it had developed some mechanical problem and parked it near a petrol pump. At that time, another vehicle came from behind and knocked the standing vehicle and as a result of it, the claimant suffered serious injuries on his head and he became unconscious. The handyman of the vehicle Abdul Barek and others took him to a nearby pharmacy and from there he was taken to Paramount Hospital, Siliguri for better treatment. 3. The Insurance Company by filing written statement took the stand that the claim is a false claim. The owner of the vehicle filed a written statement stating that it is a false and fraudulent claim and that the claimant was never employed by the owner of the vehicle as a driver. It was stated that the claimant occasionally worked as a driver on casual basis when the permanent driver was on leave, but on the day of the accident, he was not employed as a driver. It is also stated that in respect of the accident referred by the claimant, neither any GD entry had been entered in any nearby police station nor the vehicle had met with any such accident. 4. The driver of the other vehicle which was claimed to have hit the claimant's vehicle from behind, in his deposition and written statement stated that there was no damage to his vehicle in respect of any such accident. 4. The driver of the other vehicle which was claimed to have hit the claimant's vehicle from behind, in his deposition and written statement stated that there was no damage to his vehicle in respect of any such accident. The aforesaid evidence of the PW-3 being the driver of the other vehicle as well as the evidence of the owner of the vehicle to the accident that no such accident had taken place with the vehicle concerned and further that the claimant was not the driver employed by the owner at the time of the accident had not been confronted by the claimant in any manner. 5. Accordingly, we are of the view that the claimant had failed to prove that any such accident had taken place as stated in the claim petition and also that he was an employee of the vehicle concerned at the time when the alleged accident took place. 6. In the appeal the grounds taken by the appellant is that medical evidences were produced before the Commissioner as regards the injuries sustained by the claimant and further that the witnesses of the claimant have clearly stated that the appellant sustained injuries because of the offending vehicle. A further ground was taken that non filing of the FIR of the accident on its own cannot be a reason to reject the claim. Further, the fact that the owner of the vehicle paid an amount of Rs.5000/- also amounted to an admission of the owner as regards the injury sustained by the claimant. 7. We have given a consideration to the grounds taken in the appeal. Even if the medical evidence as regards the injuries is taken into consideration, the same by itself cannot be understood that the injuries were sustained by the claimant in the accident as claimed by him in the claim, more so, in view of the denial by the owner of the vehicle as regards the accident. As regards the ground of not filing the FIR by itself cannot be a conclusion that the accident had not taken place, we are of the view that non-filing of the FIR may be a reason not to arrive at a conclusion that the accident had not taken place, but in view of the specific evidence of the owner that no such accident had taken place, the non-filing of the FIR would support such contention. 8. 8. The other ground taken was that the evidence of the claimant as regards the injuries sustained because of the offending vehicle were not taken into consideration. We are of the view that we are required to consider the claim from the point of view of the claimant being an employee of the vehicle where he was employed. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it is immaterial whether the workman had sustained any injury if it is not proved that the injuries were sustained while discharging the duty as an employee. 9. From the aforesaid circumstance, we are of the view that none of the grounds taken in the appeal are sufficient by itself to take a different view. In such view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order dated 30.08.2006 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner cum Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Bongaigaon in Case No.WC 08/2002. 10. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed. Send back the LCR immediately.