JUDGMENT : The appellant Ms. Suman Taj, has filed the present miscellaneous appeal whose claim petition under S.22 of the Employees’ Compensation Act came to be dismissed by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 16.11.2015 made in ECA No.310/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chikkamagalur. 2. Brief facts of the case are: That the appellant – claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation contending that in an accident occurred on 15.06.2011 arising out of and during the course of employment, she suffered injury when she was doing wood cutting work. Immediately she was shifted to Holy Cross Hospital, Chikkamagaluru where she took initial treatment thereafter shifted to Tejaswini Hospital, Mangaluru. She contended that she was getting Rs.200/per day as wages and accident occurred during the course of employment under the 1st respondent and hence sought for compensation. 3. The 1st respondent in response to summons issued did not appear. Hence, he was placed exparte. 2nd respondent Insurance Company filed objections, denied the averments made, and liability and further contended that there is no relationship of ‘employer and employee’ and the petitioner has not produced any documents to prove that she was working under 1st respondent and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the petitioner proves that she was an employee under respondent No.1 as defined under the provisions of Employee’s Compensation Act? 2. Whether the petitioner proves that she has sustained injuries during the course of her employment? 3. Whether the petitioner proves her earnings and age at the time of accident? 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation and from whom? 5. What order or award? ” 5. In order to establish her case, the claimant examined herself as PW1 and doctor who treated her as PW2 and marked documents Exs.P1 to P7. The respondent Insurance Company examined its branch Manager Sri Pradeep Kumar as RW1 and marked the policy document as Ex.R1. 6. The Tribunal considering the material on record has recorded a finding that the claimant failed to prove that she was an employee under 1st respondent as defined under the provisions of Employee’s Compensation Act. It further held that the claimant failed to prove that she sustained injuries arising out of and during the course of employment. 6. The Tribunal considering the material on record has recorded a finding that the claimant failed to prove that she was an employee under 1st respondent as defined under the provisions of Employee’s Compensation Act. It further held that the claimant failed to prove that she sustained injuries arising out of and during the course of employment. She has not proved her monthly income, age etc. and accordingly held that she is not entitled to any compensation and dismissed the claim petition. Hence the present appeal is filed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 8. Sri Syed Khamruddin, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal dismissing the claim of the claimant is contrary to material on record and liable to be set aside. He would contend that though the claimant got herself examined as PW1 and also doctor who treated her as PW2 to prove that she sustained head injury and injuries all over body during the course of employment, same is disbelieved by the Tribunal. He would further contend that to prove that she was in hospital due to accident, she has produced Exs.P1 to P7. Said material is also not considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal erred in holding that the appellant failed to prove the relationship of employer and employee. When the 1st respondent in spite of service, failed to appear and file written statement, the Tribunal ought to have taken the allegations made by the complainant as proved. He would further contend that the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the claim petition ignoring the amended provisions of S.3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act and hence, he sought to allow the appeal. 9. Per contra, Sri L. Sreekanta Rao, learned counsel for the insurance company sought to justify the impugned Judgment and Order and contended that except oral assertion, the claimant has not produced any material document before the Tribunal to prove that she was working under 1st respondent as accident occurred out of and during the course of employment. Even the complainant has not examined her employer and no police complaint was lodged with regard to accident. In the absence of material documents to prove that the relationship between the claimant and 1st respondent was that of ‘master and servant’, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition. Even the complainant has not examined her employer and no police complaint was lodged with regard to accident. In the absence of material documents to prove that the relationship between the claimant and 1st respondent was that of ‘master and servant’, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition. Therefore he sought to dismiss the appeal. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is specific case of the claimant that while she was working in the sawmill of the 1st respondent, while doing wood cutting work, she sustained injury to head during the course of employment. 1st respondent – employer did not file any objections. Same is disputed by the Insurance Company denying the same as a story created by the claimant. 11. Claimant in order to prove that she was employed under the 1st respondent has not produced any documents before the Tribunal except, her oral evidence. Provisions of S.3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act clearly depicts that, if personal injuries are caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with law. In view of the above, it is mandatory on the part of the employee to prove that she was working under 1st respondent by producing certain documents or to adduce evidence through her employer to that effect. The same has not been done in the present case. Even the employee – claimant did not choose to examine the alleged employer nor lodged any complaint with regard to accident. 12. While considering the provisions of Section 3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, first of all, claimant who has come to court for compensation has to prove the relationship of employer and employee as that of ‘master and servant’ and has to prove that the alleged accident occurred during the course of employment. In the absence of any oral and documentary material produced by her, only oral assertion cannot be a ground to claim compensation. The Tribunal considering the entire material on record has come to the conclusion that the claimant failed to prove that she is employee under 1st respondent and accident occurred during the course of employment and she sustained injuries. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the petition. 13. The Tribunal considering the entire material on record has come to the conclusion that the claimant failed to prove that she is employee under 1st respondent and accident occurred during the course of employment and she sustained injuries. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the petition. 13. This Court while considering the provisions of Employee’s Compensation Act in the case of THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SHIMOGA Vs. SHOWKATH ALIAS SHOWKATHKHAN AND ANOTHER reported in (2011) 3 Kar. L.J. 390, held that when the claimant has not produced any material evidence and employer has denied the relationship of ‘employer and employee’, initial burden is on the employee to produce prima facie material/evidence to demonstrate that he was working under said employer, either by examining any co-employee or any other independent witness. Except the self-serving testimony of the claimant, there was no other material produced by the claimant to establish the relationship of employer and employee and accordingly held that the claimant has failed to establish that there existed any relationship of employer and employee. It was further held as under: “17. Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act mandates that employer has to pay compensation in case of an injury caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Thus, an employee has to cross the threshold bar by tendering evidence and establishing the fact that he was employed by his employer in the event of there being a denial by the employer. In the instant case, as noticed hereinabove, there is total denial of the relationship. When such being the case, the contention of Sri Rudragowda, that self-serving testimony was sufficient to accept that there exists relationship of employer and employee between the parties and on account of non-examination of the driver of the lorry by the claimant, it has to be inferred that there exists relationship of employer and employee is to be examined with circumspection. As stated hereinabove, initial burden is to be discharged by the employee, by producing prima facie material/evidence to demonstrate that he was working under the 2nd respondent in the lorry involved in question either by examining any other co-employee or any other independent witness. In the instant case there is no material of whatsoever nature produced to hold that such relationship exists. In the instant case there is no material of whatsoever nature produced to hold that such relationship exists. Self-serving testimony would not be safe to rely upon particularly in view of employer denying the relationship by not only filing the statement of objections but also when he has entered the witness-box and denied such relationship. In the absence of the said material, it cannot be held that there exists any relationship of employer and employee. Except the self-serving testimony of the claimant there was no other material produced by the claimant to establish the relationship of employer and employee in the instant case. Hence, the contention of respondent's counsel that owner of the vehicle namely the employer had to prove that there was no relationship by examining the driver of the vehicle cannot be accepted as it would amount to calling upon a party to tender negative evidence. As such, I am of the considered view that claimant has failed to establish that there exists relationship of employer and employee. Accordingly, Question No. 2 is answered in favour of the appellant and against respondent No. 1.” 14. For the reasons stated above, the appellant has not made out any substantial question of law to admit the present appeal. The appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.