JUDGMENT : (SYAM KUMAR V.M., J.) This appeal, in the second round, is filed challenging the order in E.C.C.No.8 of 2016 (WCC No.212 of 2001) dated 28.05.2020 on the files of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation (Industrial Tribunal), Thrissur. The impugned order had been rendered pursuant to an order of remand by this Court in MFA (ECC) No.49 of 2018 on the same subject matter. Appellant was the 2 nd opposite party in the proceedings before the Employees Compensation Commissioner (ECC). Respondents 1 and 2 were the applicant and the 1 st opposite party respectively in the said proceedings. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status before the ECC. 2. Applicant had moved the ECC claiming lump sum compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that allegedly occurred on 30.12.2000. It was contended that the applicant was working as a driver in a jeep owned by the 1 st opposite party and that on the relevant date, he met with an accident at Aloor while driving the vehicle. The applicant was aged 28 years and was deriving a salary of Rs.4,500 /-as monthly wages. Applicant claimed Rs.5 lakhs as lump sum compensation. The 1 st opposite party who is the owner of the vehicle, filed a written statement contending that though the vehicle had met with an accident on the date specified, the applicant had not sustained any injuries in the accident. The 2 nd opposite party, the insurance company, filed a written statement admitting the policy of the jeep. It was contended by them that there was no employer-employee relationship between the applicant and the 1 st opposite party as they are brothers. The purported employer-employee relationship put forth was only for the purpose of the case. It was also contended that the applicant did not sustain any injury in the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. No notice of accident had been given by the applicant or by the 1 st opposite party to the insurer and the driver was not holding a valid driving licence and the vehicle was not having valid documents to ply on the road. 3. The ECC framed five issues and parties proceeded to tender evidence. AW1 to AW3 were examined from the side of the applicant and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked. 3. The ECC framed five issues and parties proceeded to tender evidence. AW1 to AW3 were examined from the side of the applicant and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked. From the side of the 1 st opposite party, RW1 was examined and Ext.R1 document was marked. From the part of the 2 nd opposite party insurer, no witnesses were examined. Ext.M1 was marked. Exts.X1 and X2 which are reports of the Medical Board were marked as court documents. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence tendered, the ECC passed an impugned order inter alia granting a compensation of Rs.3,02,285/- to the applicant along with simple interest and cost. It was found that the 1 st opposite party being the employer of the applicant is liable to pay the amounts awarded and that the 2 nd opposite party being the insurer is liable to indemnify the 1 st opposite party by contract of insurance. The 2 nd opposite party insurance company has preferred this appeal challenging the said order of the ECC. 4. The following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration: “(i) Has not the Commissioner gone wrong in finding the alleged employer-employee relationship, especially when the claimant and the first opposite party are direct brothers and also when no material evidence was produced to prove the alleged employment? (ii) Has not the commissioner went wrong in fixing the loss of earning capacity at 60% for the alleged injuries, especially when there is evidence to show that the appellant has renewed his driving license after the accident? (iii) Has not the commissioner gone wrong in not exonerating the insurance company from the liability on account of breach of policy condition as the vehicle was not having a valid fitness certificate?” 5. Heard Sri.George Cherian, Senior Advocate, instructed by Smt.Latha Susuan Cherian, Advocate for the appellant (2 nd opposite party) and Sri.Babu Karukappadath, Advocate for the 1 st respondent (applicant). 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/2 nd opposite party submitted that after the ECC erred in rendering the very same order after the remand. Though the remand had afforded an opportunity to the applicant to produce additional evidence regarding the purported employer-employee relationship, except for examining the owner of the jeep, who was none other than the applicant's own brother, no legally tenable evidence had been produced by the applicant after the remand. Though the remand had afforded an opportunity to the applicant to produce additional evidence regarding the purported employer-employee relationship, except for examining the owner of the jeep, who was none other than the applicant's own brother, no legally tenable evidence had been produced by the applicant after the remand. The applicant could not produce any document to indicate that he was employed by the first opposite party. It was contended that there was no proper application of mind by the Commissioner in passing the impugned order. The only evidence tendered after the remand was the oral evidence of AW1 and RW1 and copy of the permit produced as Ext.R1. The ECC ought to have found that the employer-employee relationship between the brothers could not be lightly inferred. The ECC went wrong in holding that there is an employer-employee relationship between the applicant and the first opposite party. As regards the disability claimed and fixed, the ECC ought to have found that it had no relationship to the alleged injuries. The alleged injury was crush injury to the right hand. The Commissioner went wrong in fixing the percentage of loss of earning capacity at 60%, especially in view of the fact that the driving licence was renewed by the applicant after the accident. Renewal of driving licence it was contended shows that the applicant had not sustained any disability in driving the vehicle. That being so, the Commissioner went wrong in allowing substantial compensation purportedly towards permanent disability. The ECC ought to have found that the vehicle was used without a valid permit and certificate of fitness. This had amounted to a violation of policy conditions as well as the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The ECC ought to have found that the 1 st opposite party is liable to satisfy the award and ought not have shifted the burden on to the 2 nd opposite party. Reliance was also placed by the learned senior counsel on the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and another .[ (2007)13 SCC 446 ] and on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Pareed Pillai v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [ 2018 (5) KHC 1 (FB) ]. 7. 7. Per contra, The learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that the order rendered by the ECC was legal and was squarely based on the evidence tendered. After the remand, the ECC had taken note of the additional evidence produced and had correctly relied on the same to be convinced of the employer - employee relationship between the applicant and the 1 st opposite party. The ECC had validly concluded that since the first opposite party was aged and had no driving licence, he had employed his brother, that is the applicant, to drive the vehicle and during the period covering the date of the accident, the vehicle was being used for collecting postal articles. ECC had taken due note of the fact that this Court had remanded the matter back, finding that the applicant could not produce any documents to indicate that he was employed by the 1 st opposite party. After the remand, the employer had stepped into the witness box and gave evidence, which the ECC found to be reliable and has validly explained the circumstances for not issuing a wage slip or letter of appointment to the applicant. The ECC correctly concluded that the evidence available on record in the earlier round of litigation and subsequent to the remand are not similar. As regards the employer employee relationship between the 1 st opposite party and the applicant, after a discussion of the precedents on the point, including the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju (supra), the ECC had validly concluded that not producing wage slip or the letter of appointment by the claimant/ workman from his blood relation public/registered owner of the vehicle is not fatal to his case and as regards the case of the applicant is concerned, the 1 st opposite party/ employer had properly explained the reason for not issuing a wage slip or letter of appointment to the applicant. The ECC had thus validly concluded that the applicant had discharged his initial burden to establish employer-employee relationship between the first opposite party and him and the causal connection between the injury sustained by him and his employment. As regards the vehicle not having a valid fitness certificate, it was contended that the ECC had rightly concluded that no adverse inference could be drawn against the 1 st opposite party for non production of fitness certificate. As regards the vehicle not having a valid fitness certificate, it was contended that the ECC had rightly concluded that no adverse inference could be drawn against the 1 st opposite party for non production of fitness certificate. The ECC had validly noted that the claim for compensation was filed by the applicant in the year 2001 and the insurer had filed the petition seeking production of documents only in the year 2015. There had been a delay of 14 years in filing the petition. No adverse inference could be drawn against the 1 st opposite party for the said reason. The ECC had validly concluded that since the insurer had in the written statement admitted the policy and the existence of valid cover on the date of the accident, the insurer is liable to indemnify the 1 st opposite party. As regards the disability suffered by the applicant, the ECC had concluded that the contention that since the applicant had renewed the licence, he would have been gainfully employed even after the accident is devoid of merits. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Manjeri v. V.T. Majeed and another [ 2013 KHC 352 ] to contend that mere reason that the driving licence was renewed does not reveal that the applicant was not suffering from any disability. Reliance is also placed on the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.S.Shylaja v. Oriental Insurance Co. and another [ AIR 2014 SC 893 ] to contend that the finding of fact that had been arrived at by the ECC could not be lightly interfered with or reversed by the High Court. 8. I have heard both sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth and the precedents relied on. Section 30 of the ECC Act specifically addresses appeals from orders of the ECC and states that an appeal would lie to this Court only on a substantial question of law. Thus contentions put forth based on facts are beyond the purview of this appeal. It is hence necessary to refrain from develving on such contentions on facts and to confine to substantial questions of law. Thus contentions put forth based on facts are beyond the purview of this appeal. It is hence necessary to refrain from develving on such contentions on facts and to confine to substantial questions of law. I note that in Vijayaraghavan v. Velu and another [ 1973 KLT 333 ], this Court had laid down the contours of the jurisdiction exercised by this Court in appeals from the orders rendered by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and inter alia had confirmed in this Court the power to alter the decree by substituting the person liable. In Gottumukkala (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the question of existence of employer employee relationship between the deceased and the owner of the tractor who were husband and wife and whether the deceased could be termed as a 'workman' within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 Act. It was held in the facts and circumstances of that case that the question of husband being a workman under his wife is a far- fetched one and the award passed against the insurer despite non- production of a documentary proof to establish contract of employment between wife and husband, was unsustainable. Subsequently in T.S.Shylaja (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering an appeal from the judgment of the High Court wherein the owner and the deceased were brothers held that the question whether there existed an employer employee relationship between the brothers was a question of act and once the Commissioner for workmen's compensation had apprised the evidence adduced before him and recorded a finding that the deceased was indeed employed as a driver by the owner of the vehicle no matter the owner happened to be his brother, such a finding could not be lightly interfered with or reversed by the high court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had 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 High Court had, however, upset the finding of the Commissioner regarding the existence of an employer-employee relationship holding that the Commissioner could not have blindly accepted the oral evidence of the brother who was the owner without analyzing the documentary evidence on record. The High Court had, however, upset the finding of the Commissioner regarding the existence of an employer-employee relationship holding that the Commissioner could not have blindly accepted the oral evidence of the brother who was the owner without analyzing the documentary evidence on record. Supreme Court, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court had held therein as follows: "The High Court could not have without adverting to the documents vaguely referred to by it have upset the finding of fact which the commissioner was entitled to record. Suffice it to say that, apart from the appreciation of evidence adduced before the Commissioner, the High Court has neither referred to nor determined any question of law, much less a substantial question of law. The existence whereof was a condition precedent for maintainability of an appeal under Section 30. Inasmuch as the High Court remained oblivious of the basic requirement of law for the maintainability of an appeal before it, and inasmuch as it treated the appeal to be one on facts, it committed an error which needs to be corrected. " 9. I note that the above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.S. Shylaja (supra) applies to the case at hand. The ECC had while rendering the impugned judgment elaborately considered the evidence put forth by the applicant subsequent to the remand and had principally relied on the deposition of RW1, the brother of the applicant who was the owner of the lorry. Elaborate reasoning has been provided by the ECC for the conclusion arrived at after the appreciation of factual evidence tendered. It is not for this Court to sit on appeal over the appreciation of the facts made by the ECC and substitute the conclusion thus arrived at. In Gottumukkala (supra), the Supreme Court had concluded that the question of a husband being a workman under his wife is a far-fetched one taking note that no documentary proof to establish the contract of employment nor any independent witness had been examined. In T.S.Shylaja (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further refined the proposition by holding that once evidence had been tendered with respect to employer-employee relationship and if the ECC finds the said evidence to be reliable, then the burden to prove the lack of such an employer-employee relationship would shift to the opposite party. In T.S.Shylaja (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further refined the proposition by holding that once evidence had been tendered with respect to employer-employee relationship and if the ECC finds the said evidence to be reliable, then the burden to prove the lack of such an employer-employee relationship would shift to the opposite party. Then it becomes the onus of the party who challenges such a relationship to substantiate the stand. Thus in the case at hand, after the remand when further evidence was adduced to prove the employer-employee relationship, through the oral evidence of AW1 and RW1 and copy of the permit produced as Ext. R1, albeit the fact that RW1 the owner who was the brother of the applicant, the burden had shifted on to the insurer to controvert the said evidence and substantiate the contention that there existed no such employer- employee relationship. As regards the non-existence of documentary proof to support such a relationship as well as regarding the lack of fitness certificate for the vehicle, the ECC had explained the same by stating that there had been a humongous delay on the part of the insurer in seeking production of documents. The best possible evidence that was available had been put forth by the applicant and the finding of the ECC that no adverse inference could be drawn against the appellant is cogent and valid. The finding of the ECC regarding the employer-employee relationship, cannot be termed erroneous on both counts i.e., regarding the fact that the owner is the brother of the applicant and also regarding the question of alleged lack of material evidence. As regards the finding of the ECC regarding loss of earning capacity, I note that the same had been arrived at on the basis of the material evidence presented before the Commissioner and the contentions that the applicant had renewed his licence cannot be a reason to presume that he had not suffered any disability in the accident. As had been held in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Manjeri (supra) the ECC was not considering the propriety of renewing the driving licence in the proceedings and the percentage of disability cannot be interfered with only for the reason that the driving licence was renewed in favour of the applicant. As had been held in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Manjeri (supra) the ECC was not considering the propriety of renewing the driving licence in the proceedings and the percentage of disability cannot be interfered with only for the reason that the driving licence was renewed in favour of the applicant. As regards the contention that the relevant vehicle was not having a valid fitness certificate, as mentioned above, the ECC has correctly held that the insurer cannot absolve itself from the liability on the said count. The substantial questions drawn are accordingly answered against the appellant (2 nd opposite party) and in favour of the 1 st respondent (applicant). In view of the above discussion, the MFA (ECC) is dismissed. No costs.