JUDGMENT : S.G. PANDIT, J. 1. The appellant-insurance company is before this Court in this appeal under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('Act' for short). 2. The claimants are the wife, minor children and mother of the deceased Vaidyanath Dharma. The claimants filed claim under Section 10 of the Act before the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Gulbarga ('Commissioner' for short) claiming compensation for the death of Vaidyanath Dharma in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have taken place on 19.07.2006. It is stated that on 19.07.2006 at 2.30 a.m. when the deceased while driving the Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-10-V-0083 met with an accident at Kavali village and while taking the deceased to the hospital on the way he succumbed to the injuries. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 40 years as on the date of the accident and he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as salary from respondent No.1-Owner of the Lorry. Thus, the claimants claimed a total compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- from the respondents. 3. On issuance of notice, both respondents appeared before the Commissioner and filed their separate written objections. 4. The respondent No.1-Owner of the Lorry contended that the deceased was never under his employment as driver or in any other capacity. Further, contended that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and respondent No.1. 5. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company in its objection denied the petition averments and also had denied that the deceased was working under respondent No.1 as driver. The respondent No.2 also denied that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. It is also stated that the deceased has not died during the course of his employment under respondent No.1. 6. The Commissioner formulated the following points for its consideration: XXX XXX XXX 7. The Commissioner held that the deceased died during the course of employment due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident which had taken place on 19.07.2006. Thus, the Commissioner awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,68,340/- with 12% interest. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Commissioner, the insurance company is before this Court in this appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Thus, the Commissioner awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,68,340/- with 12% interest. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Commissioner, the insurance company is before this Court in this appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimants have not proved the employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the respondent No.1. Without proving the same, the Commissioner could not have proceeded further to award the compensation. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1- Owner of the Lorry submits that the deceased never worked under him and he further submits that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and him. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the FIR and the statement of the owner of the Lorry Sri. Kallayya Swamy wound indicate that the deceased was working as driver under respondent No.1. He further submits that the statement of the cleaner also indicates that the deceased was working as driver under respondent No.1. 13. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, the following substantial question of law would arise for consideration: Whether the Commissioner is justified in law in holding that the deceased died due to accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of the employment under respondent No.1? 14. The claimants are wife, minor children and mother of the deceased Vaidyanath Dharma. Respondent No.1 is the owner of Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-10-V-0083. Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the lorry. 15. The case of the claimants is that on 19.07.2006 the deceased while driving the Lorry met with an accident at 2.30 a.m. at Kavali village and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. How the accident has taken place and which is the offending vehicle or whether the Lorry in question has dashed to any other parked/standing vehicle is not forthcoming either from the FIR, spot panchanama or other materials on record. 16. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased was working as driver under respondent No.1-Owner of the Lorry. The respondent No.1 has filed its objection before the Commissioner. In the objection, the respondent No.1 disputes the relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and him. The relevant portion of which reads thus: "2. 16. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased was working as driver under respondent No.1-Owner of the Lorry. The respondent No.1 has filed its objection before the Commissioner. In the objection, the respondent No.1 disputes the relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and him. The relevant portion of which reads thus: "2. That, at the outset it is submitted that, the deceased was never under the employment of this respondent either as driver or in any other capacity. Thus, there was no relationship of employer and workmen between the respondent No.1 and the deceased. xxxxxx" 17. Respondent No.1 is examined as R.W.1 before the Commissioner. The claimants have not elicited anything in the cross-examination of R.W.1 with regard to the employment of the deceased under respondent No.1. The relevant portion of cross-examination of R.W.1 is extracted as under: XXX XXX XXX 18. Renuka, the claimant No.1 got examined herself as P.W.1. The claimants have not produced any piece of document to show or remotely to suggest that the deceased was working as driver under respondent No.1. There is no evidence or material to conclude that there is employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the respondent No.1. Where the so called employer denies that deceased was not an employee under him, the onus to prove that deceased was employee under him is on the claimants. Mere statement that the deceased was employee under respondent No.1 is not sufficient in the absence of any other material evidence. In the claim petition, the claimants have stated that the deceased sustained grievous internal injuries to the stomach, lungs, chest, pain in chest and stomach. But, the postmortem report, Ex.P-3 states as follows; "There is no external and internal injuries were present over the body of the deceased" 19. The Department of Forensic Medicines, Guntur Medical College, Guntur in its final opinion dated 23.07.2006 has opined as follows; "To the best of my knowledge and belief the deceased was died due to cardiac-respiratory arrest as a result of coronary arteries insufficiency. 20. All these would create doubt or cloud over the entire issue, more particularly death out of and during the course of employment. Moreover, as stated above, the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased was working under respondent No.1 as driver of Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-10-V-0083 with cogent and convincing evidence. 20. All these would create doubt or cloud over the entire issue, more particularly death out of and during the course of employment. Moreover, as stated above, the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased was working under respondent No.1 as driver of Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-10-V-0083 with cogent and convincing evidence. In fact, no piece of evidence is produced in that regard. Hence, the question of law framed herein above is answered in the Negative. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 05.01.2011 in WCA No.92/2006 is set aside and claim petition filed by the claimants is hereby dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant-insurance company. In view of the disposal of the appeal, Miscellaneous Civil No.153670/2011 would not survive for consideration. Accordingly, same is disposed of.