JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2010 of the workmen Compensation Tribunal, Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Thiruchirapalli, passed in W.C.No.501 of 2005.) 1. When the matter was called, there was no representation for the first respondent. 2. The Insurance Company is the appellant herein. Challenging the award passed in W.C.No.501 of 2005 dated 25.08.2010 by the Deputy Commssioner for Wormen's Compensation, Thiruchirapalli, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed. 3. The first respondent has filed the above claim petition before the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Thiruchirapalli, for claiming compensation, wherein it is stated that the accident took place on 22.05.2005 at about 09.00 a.m, on Trichy-Madurai Main road near Kottumbalur Pedari Kovil while the petitioner was boarding in the vehicle as a loadman in the first respondent vehicle. On 22.05.2005, at about 09.00 a.m, the driver of the first respondent drove the vehicle from Trichy-Madurai Main Road and when the vehicle was nearing Veeralimalai Kodumbalur Pedari Kovil, the vehicle dashed agaisnt a pedestrians and suddenly capsized and the petitioner who travelled in the vehicle as Loadman, sustained the gervious injuries in his left hand. The accident happened only during the course of employment of the petitioner workmen under the first respondent. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. Veeralimalai police has registered the case in Crime No.205/2005 under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. 4. The Insurance Company has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that there is no employer - employee relationship between the parties and he only travelled as a passenger in the load auto. The Insurance policy is covered only the driver and the cleaner of the vehicle and hence, the Insurance Company sought for exoneration. 5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioner, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and 7 documents were marked as Exs. P1 to P7 and on the side of the respondent, no one was examined as witness and 4 documents was marked as Ex.R1 to R4. 6. 5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioner, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and 7 documents were marked as Exs. P1 to P7 and on the side of the respondent, no one was examined as witness and 4 documents was marked as Ex.R1 to R4. 6. The Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, after analysing the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto, which was insured with the appellant herein and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation of Rs.2,18,679/-. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. 7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 8. This Court, at the time of admitting the above appeal, has formulated the following substantial questions of law: ''1. Whether the learned Commissioner is erred in holding that there is Insurance cover to the load man for the Insurance Policy issued to the second respondent's load auto? 2.Whether the learned Commissioner is at fault as he failed to hold that the second respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy?'' 9. The learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company contended that there is no employer-employee relationship between the claim petitioner and the second respondent herein. As per the Ex.P4/Policy coverage, the policy is covered only the driver and the cleaner of the vehicle and since the claim petitioner travelled in the Auto as a passenger, the petition before the workman compensation is not maintainable. 10. On perusal of Exs.R1 to R3 and the evidence of Neelamegal, I find that in his statement, he has stated that 15 persons travelled in the auto as passengers to attend their relative's marriage function and at that time, the vehicle was capsized and he has sustained injuries and hence, I find that the Commissioner has failed to consider the Exs.R1 to R3 and there is no employer-employee relationship between the owner of the vehicle and the claim petitioner. In the absence of evidence to prove the employer-employee relationship between the parties, the claim petition before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is not maintainable. 11. In the absence of evidence to prove the employer-employee relationship between the parties, the claim petition before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is not maintainable. 11. Yet another point is that the vehicle involved in the accident is a load auto and as per the Ex.P3/Insurance Policy copy, it is covered only for driver and the cleaner and not for the passengers, who are unauthorized passengers in the load auto. Hence, the policy is not covered to the claim petitioner and hence, all the contentions raised by the appellant/Insurance Company are in affirmation and all the substantial question of all answered in affirmation. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Thiruchirapalli in W.C.No.501 of 2005 dated 25.08.2010 is set aside. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited is exonerated from liability and permitted to withdraw the award amount deposited to the credit of W.C.No.501 of 2005 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Thiruchirapalli. No costs.