JUDGMENT 1. The Appellant herein filed this Appeal under Sec. 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, against the Order and Decree dtd. 25/11/2021 passed in E.C.No.2 of 2016 by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ongole, (in short 'learned Tribunal') whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the appellants. 2. The appellants herein are the applicants and respondents herein are the opposite parties before the court below. 3. The appellants herein has filed a claim petition before the tribunal alleging that the deceased workman/ Naresh Kumar as a driver to the Indica Car bearing No. AP 26 AL 7604 belongs to the 1st respondent, started from Ongole to Hyderabad on personal work and while they reached in between Srinagar and Pondugala Village The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. on Addanki - Narketpalli State High Way at about 3.30 a.m the vehicle fell in a Canal due to the jig jag driving of the opposite coming unknown vehicle. As a result of which the driver K. Naresh Kumar and inmate of the car K. Ramesh Babu received multiple injuries. The dead body of the deceased K. Naresh Kumar was shifted to Gurajala Government Hospital for Postmortem. The deceased died during the course of employment and that the respondents are held liable to pay compensation. Accordingly the appellants submitted a claim before them for compensation, but in vain. Hence the E.C.Case No.2 of 2016 came to be filed. 4. The 1st respondent filed counter before learned tribunal inter alia contended that the deceased was aged 29 years as on the date of death and drawing salary of Rs.12, 000.00 per month. The 1st respondent insured her car with the 2nd respondent, which is in force and that the 2nd respondent is liable to pay compensation to the appellants as deceased was died during the course of employment of the 1st respondent as driver of the car. The deceased was having valid driving license. 5. The 2nd respondent before the learned tribunal has filed counter denying all material allegations made in the claim petition and mainly contended that there is no employee and employer relationship between the deceased and the 1st respondent and the deceased was not died during the course of employment under 1st respondent. The deceased was having valid driving license. 5. The 2nd respondent before the learned tribunal has filed counter denying all material allegations made in the claim petition and mainly contended that there is no employee and employer relationship between the deceased and the 1st respondent and the deceased was not died during the course of employment under 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has not paid any premium towards to cover the risk of the driver. It is further contended that the car bearing No. AP 26 AL 7604 belongs to 1st respondent is a private car and the deceased is the elder brother of the 1st respondent and that there is no employee and employer relationship between the deceased and the 1st respondent. The driving license of the deceased is LMV nontransport and is not authorized to drive the crime vehicle and the 1st respondent wantonly entrusted the vehicle to the deceased, who is none other the elder brother of the 1st respondent. The claim is excessive. The 1st respondent has not any premium towards to cover the risk of the driver. As such as there is no coverage of risk of the driver, the 2nd respondent is not liable to reimburse the liability of the owner of the vehicle. Hence requested to dismiss the claim. 6. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues viz., 1) Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation as claimed by the applicants? 2) Who are liable to pay compensation amount? 3) To what relief the applicants are entitled to? 7. During the course of trial, the 1st appellant was examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A6 and 1st respondent was examined as RW-1 and marked Ex.B1 copy of the policy. 8. Learned Tribunal, after hearing on both sides passed an order holding that there is no employee- employer relationship between the deceased and the 1st respondent and the appellants and the 1st respondent colluded together and filed the claim petition. The appellants and the 1st respondent failed to prove the employeeemployer relationship between the deceased and the 1st respondent. Therefore the appellants are not entitled to claim compensation and accordingly dismissed the claim filed by the appellants. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed. 9. Heard Mr. The appellants and the 1st respondent failed to prove the employeeemployer relationship between the deceased and the 1st respondent. Therefore the appellants are not entitled to claim compensation and accordingly dismissed the claim filed by the appellants. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed. 9. Heard Mr. Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Sri Paladugu Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. 10. During hearing learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased is not the employee working under the 1st respondent on impermissible assumptions and presumptions. The learned tribunal failed to appreciate the case as pleaded by the appellants and instead of distorted the pleadings, misread and misconstrued the same leading to miscarriage of justice. The evidence adduced by the 1st respondent with reference to engaging the deceased as a driver and also miserably failed to see that there is no bar in engaging the relative as a driver. 11. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants placed on record the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "T.S.Shylaja v. Oriental Insurance Company and Another", (2014) 2 SCC 587 . wherein it was held as follows: "The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation had, in the case at hand, appraised the evidence adduced before him and recorded a finding of fact that the deceased was indeed employed as a driver by the owner of the vehicle no matter that the owner happened to be his brother. That finding could not be lightly interfered with or reversed by the High Court. The High Court overlooked the fact that the respondent owner of the vehicle had appeared as a witness and clearly stated that the deceased was his younger brother, but was working as a paid driver under him. That finding could not be lightly interfered with or reversed by the High Court. The High Court overlooked the fact that the respondent owner of the vehicle had appeared as a witness and clearly stated that the deceased was his younger brother, but was working as a paid driver under him. The Commissioner had, in this regard, observed: "After examining the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court relied upon by the second opponent it is seen that the owner of the vehicle being the sole witness has been unsuccessful in establishing his case but in this proceeding the owner of the vehicle has appeared before this Court even though he is a relative of the deceased, and has submitted in his objections, even evidence that even though the deceased was his younger brother he was working as a driver under him, and has admitted that he was paying salary to him. The applicant in support of his case has submitted the Hon'ble High Court judgment in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yallappa Bhimappa Alagudi, ILR 2006 KAR 518. which I have examined in depth which holds that there is no law that relatives cannot be in employer-employee relationship. Therefore it is not possible to ignore the oral and documentary evidence in favour of the applicant and such evidence has to be weighed in favour of the applicant. For these reasons I hold that the deceased was working as driver under first opponent and driving Toyota Quails No. KA 02 C 423, that he died in accident on 3/9/2000, that he is a 'workman' as defined in the Workmen's Compensation Act and it is held that he has caused accident in the course of employment in a negligent fashion which has resulted in his death." 12. Further in "Sandeep BNS S/o Nagesh B.R v. New India Assurance Company Limited, by its Manager, B.N.Santhosh", 2019 LawSuit (Kar) 2740. wherein learned Single Judge, High court of Karnataka discussed at Para 23 of its Judgment, the case of "Manohar Bhimappa More v. Mahadev Bhimappa More", 2006 ACJ 850 . at Para 3 held as follows: "3.......The fact that the injured is the brother and the guarantor for repayment of the loan is not a valid reason to hold that he was not a workman employed in connection with the tractor - trailer. at Para 3 held as follows: "3.......The fact that the injured is the brother and the guarantor for repayment of the loan is not a valid reason to hold that he was not a workman employed in connection with the tractor - trailer. The member of the family so employed cannot be considered as a workman in law only when he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Hence there is no inhibition in law for employment of member of the family in connection with the tractor - trailer. In view of the peculiar family relationship, it is absurd to insist on documentary proof of appointment and the payment of wages by cash as the only mode of consideration for proof of employment". 13. Whereas learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent reiterated the contents urged before the learned tribunal and vehemently opposed to allow the C.M.A as the learned tribunal rightly dismissed the claim of the appellants that there is no relationship between employee and employer and the appellants and 1st respondent have colluded together and filed the claim petition for wrongful gain. Therefore there is no impropriety or illegality in the order of the learned tribunal. Hence, requested to dismiss the same. 14. Perused the record. 15. It is the dispute raised by the 2nd respondent that there is no employee - employer relationship between the deceased and the 1st respondent. It is the contention of the 2nd respondent that the deceased Kommunuri Naresh Kumar is the elder brother of the 1st respondent and that there is no employee employer relationship between the deceased and the 1st respondent. Further it is the contention of the 2nd respondent that the 1st respondent has not paid any premium towards to cover the risk of the driver, as such the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the appellants. 16. A keen reading of the decision of the High Court of Karnakata in Sandeep B.N.S' case cited supra, at Para 22 of its Judgment, wherein it was discussed the case in "Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Hanumanth and Another", 2005 (4) KCCR 2320 . at Para 22 held that "2. 16. A keen reading of the decision of the High Court of Karnakata in Sandeep B.N.S' case cited supra, at Para 22 of its Judgment, wherein it was discussed the case in "Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Hanumanth and Another", 2005 (4) KCCR 2320 . at Para 22 held that "2. The contention of the insurer that there exists no relationship of employer and employee since the first respondent (driver) happens to be the son of the owner of the jeep (respondent No.2), therefore, there cannot be a relationship of employer and employee is an untenable argument. It is not uncommon amongst the business family to engage their own kith and kin on employment for doing the business or commercial activity. Merely because in such a situation no wages are paid in cash is also not a ground to infer absence of a legal relationship of employer and employee, since there would always be consideration in kind computable in terms of money for the services rendered. The parties would not go for documentation of the contract nor create any documentary material to prove payment of wages in view of the peculiar family relationship. Therefore, the fact that the first respondent and second respondent are father and son, is not a ground in law to infer the absence of the relationship of employer and employee under the Workmen's Compensation Act". 17. Therefore, it is very clear that the relationship with deceased and 1st respondent is not a ground to reject the claim of the appellants in the light of the case law cited supra. Further it is an admitted fact that the insurance policy is in force as on the date of accident and the deceased has valid driving license. As such the 2nd respondent is liable to pay compensation. 18. Upon perusal of the impugned Award would show that the learned tribunal searched technicalities, rather than material available on record and came to a conclusion that there is no relationship as employee and employer between deceased and 1st respondent. As such the 2nd respondent is liable to pay compensation. 18. Upon perusal of the impugned Award would show that the learned tribunal searched technicalities, rather than material available on record and came to a conclusion that there is no relationship as employee and employer between deceased and 1st respondent. It is also very clear that in T.S.Shylaja's case cited supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the relationship between the deceased and his brother the owner of the vehicle he was driving was not satisfactorily proved to be that of an employee and employer and that the only remedy which the appellant, mother of the deceased had, was by way of a claim for payment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the appellants are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Further the insurance policy is in force at the time of accident and that the 2nd respondent is held liable to pay compensation to the appellants. 19. Following the decisions referred above and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is opined that the impugned order passed by the learned tribunal is cryptic and interference of this Court is warranted and that the same is liable to be set aside. 20. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed as prayed for. The 2nd respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.12, 59, 520.00 along with interest at 6% p.a from the date of filing the claim petition before the tribunal, till realization. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the same before the learned tribunal, within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellants are equally entitled to withdraw the total amount by filing proper application before the learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.