JUDGMENT : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 02.08.2024 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand in MAC Case No.120/2022 (CIS No.120/2022) whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,95,181/- in favour of the claimant alongwith interest holding appellant Insurance Company also jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 2. Brief facts as pleaded in the claim petition are that Ramesh Gurjar was employed as a khalasi/cleaner on pickup bearing registration No.RJ-30-GA-9031, owned by respondent No.3. On 01.07.2021, he was travelling from Bundi towards Devgarh in the said pickup. At around 12:00 -1:00 PM, upon reaching near Gageda Gaon, the pickup being driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.2 driver, overturned, resulting in the fatality of Ramesh Gurjar. FIR No.0185/2021 pertaining to said accident was lodged at Police Station Gulabpura. The offending vehicle, on the date of the accident, was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. 3. The claimant being the mother of deceased Ramesh Gurjar claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.51,50,000/- with an averment that her son used to work as Khalasi/cleaner and earned a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. 4. The learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on the record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, awarded total compensation of Rs.10,95,181/- in favour of the claimant holding the Insurance Company also jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in deciding Issue no.3 against the Company and fastening liability on it to pay the compensation. He submitted that respondent no.3, the owner of the offending vehicle is the father of the deceased. It is the settled position of law that a person cannot be both, a tortfeasor and a beneficiary. It is the owner who is indemnified by the Insurer. The owner himself being held liable, the Insurer could not have been directed to pay compensation to the claimant, the wife of the owner. 6. Counsel submitted that the burden to prove that the deceased was travelling in the capacity of a Khalasi and not as the son of the owner was on the claimant. Further, it was imperative for the claimant to establish that there existed an ‘Employer- Employee Relationship’ between the father (respondent no.3 owner) and son (deceased Ramesh Gurjar). 6. Counsel submitted that the burden to prove that the deceased was travelling in the capacity of a Khalasi and not as the son of the owner was on the claimant. Further, it was imperative for the claimant to establish that there existed an ‘Employer- Employee Relationship’ between the father (respondent no.3 owner) and son (deceased Ramesh Gurjar). Further, no document whatsoever, was exhibited before the learned Tribunal to prove that any salary was being paid to the deceased by the owner. 7. Counsel for the Insurance Company further submitted that the learned Tribunal erroneously fastened liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation whereas the vehicle in question was admittedly a goods vehicle and no premium qua any passenger was charged/paid and thus, risk of the deceased who was the son of the owner of the vehicle in question and was travelling in the capacity of a passenger, could not have been termed to be covered under the Insurance Policy. 8. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-claimant while supporting the impugned judgment/award submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation while determining the relationship of employer-employee between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle in question. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. A bare perusal of the material available on record reflects that the claimant (mother of the deceased) and owner (father of the deceased) in their statements have specifically deposed that they had been living separately for last 10 years and the deceased had been employed by his father as a Khalasi/Cleaner on his pickup. 10. A bare perusal of the material available on record reflects that the claimant (mother of the deceased) and owner (father of the deceased) in their statements have specifically deposed that they had been living separately for last 10 years and the deceased had been employed by his father as a Khalasi/Cleaner on his pickup. AW-1 Bagtu Bai deposed as under : ^^esjk iq= gtkjhyky xqtZj dh blh fidvi ij [kyklh@fDyuj dk dk;Z djrk Fkk] ftls izfrekg 15]000@& :i;s osru feyrk FkkA gtkjh yky o eSa fiNys 10 o"kZ ds vyx&vyx jg jgs gSaA gtkjhyky us gh esjs iq= dks bl fidvi ij [kyklh@fDyuj j[kk FkkA jes'k esjk ,dek= iq= FkkA^^ She, in her cross-examination stated as under: ^^;g dguk lgh gS fd esjs ,d yM+dh gS ftldk uke nsm gSA esjk rykd ugha gqvk gS ysfdu eSa 10 lky ls vyx jg jgh gwaA ;g esjh tkudkjh esa ugha gS fd esjs ifr us ghjkyky dks lCth ykus ys tkus dk Bsdk ns j[kk gksA vt[kqn dgk fd xkMh+ pykrk FkkA esjk yM+dk vfookfgr FkkA esjs ifr us nwljk fookg ugha fd;k gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd esjk yM+dk xkMh+ ij [kyklh ugha gks vkSj lkjk dke ghjkyky pkyd gh djrk gksA esjs ifr 'kq: ls ysdj vHkh [ksr dk dke gh djrs gSaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd esjk csVk lokjh dh gSfl;r ls tk jgk gks cfYd [kyklh dh gSfl;r ls xkM+h ij FkkA e`rd jes'k okgu Lokeh gtkjh yky dk iq= gSA eSaus vius iq= dh vk; o fu;kstu ds laca/k esa dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugha fd;s gSaA esjs ifr esjs iq= dks 15]000 :i;s nsrs gks ,slk Hkh dksbZ cSad LVsVesaV is'k ugha fd;k gSA”^ 11. NAW-2 Hajarilal deposed as under : ^^e`rd jes'k xqtZj esjh fidvi ij [kyklh vkSj fDyuj dk dke djrk FkkA bl nq?kZVuk esa esjh xkM+h Msest gks xbZ FkhA ftldk Dyse eSaus chek dEiuh esa fd;k Fkk mDr xkM+h esa gqbZ leLr {kfr dk Hkqxrku chek dEiuh }kjk lfoZl lsUVj dks dj fn;k x;k] ftldk fcy izn'kZ ,u-,-6 gSA eSa esjh iRuh ls cxrq ckbZ ls 10 o"kZ ls vyx jg jgk gqaA eSaus esjh xkM+h dk iwjk chek djok j[kk FkkA jes'k xqtZj mldh eka cxrq ckbZ ds lkFk jgrk Fkk ftls eSa izfrekg 15]000@& :i;s esgurkuk nsrk FkkA^^ In his cross-examination, he made the following statements: ^^esjs ,d yM+dk gSA esjh ,d gh iRuh gS ftldk uke cxrqckbZ gSA cxrqckbZ ls esjh yM+kbZ gks xbZ Fkh ftl dkj.k og esjs ls vyx jgrh gSA jes'k cxrq ckbZ ds lkFk jgrk FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd lCth dk lkjk dkjksckj ghjkyky djrk FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd esjk yM+dk esjs fu;kstu esa dke ugha djrk gksA eSaus mlds osru o fu;kstu ds laca?k esa dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugha fd, gSaA^^ 12. In view of the specific deposition of claimant (AW-1) and the father of the deceased i.e. owner of the vehicle in question (NAW- 2), this Court is of the opinion that the claimant had very well clarified that she and her son Ramesh i.e. the deceased were living separately from her husband/owner of the vehicle in question. Further, the claimant (AW-1) also deposed that the deceased was employed as a Khalasi/Cleaner by her husband. The said statement remained uncontroverted and thus, this Court does not find any ground to per se disbelieve the statements as made by the claimant before the learned Tribunal. 13. Further, there is no bar under any law that states that a parent cannot employ his/her child. A family consists of a close- knit structure and it cannot be expected that a parent employing his/her child would execute a formal agreement with the child. It is also possible that a child would not be paid monetarily by the parent, however, even in such circumstances it cannot be stated that there exists no relationship of employer-employee between the parent and the child. This view is fortified by the judgment passed by Karnataka High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. It is also possible that a child would not be paid monetarily by the parent, however, even in such circumstances it cannot be stated that there exists no relationship of employer-employee between the parent and the child. This view is fortified by the judgment passed by Karnataka High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hanumant and Ors.; M.F.A. 5934/2002 (decided on 24.03.2005) wherein while dealing with similar circumstances, the Court held as under: “(2) The contention of the insurer that there exists no relationship of employer and employee since the respondent No. 1 (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 respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are father and son, is not a ground in law to infer the absence of the relationship of employer and employee under Workmen's Compensation act.” 14. Further, the Karnataka High Court, while dealing with a similar factual matrix wherein the parents were living separately and the mother was dependant on the son observed that merely because the parents have not divorced, the relationship of employer-employee between the deceased and father cannot be denied. The High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. G.D. Dengi and Ors.; M.F.A. No.3592/2003 (decided on 20.03.2008) observed as under: “10. No doubt, respondent No. 1 is none other than the father and respondent No. 2 is the mother of the deceased Umesh. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of Maruti van which was involved in the accident. Respondent No. 1 admitted the relationship of employer and the employee with himself and the deceased. No doubt, respondent No. 1 is none other than the father and respondent No. 2 is the mother of the deceased Umesh. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of Maruti van which was involved in the accident. Respondent No. 1 admitted the relationship of employer and the employee with himself and the deceased. It is seen that respondent No. 2 has claimed that she is the resident of Bijapur whereas respondent No. 1 who is the owner of the vehicle, is the resident of Solapur. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hanumant, it has to be held that the fact that parties are father and son is not a ground to infer the absence of relationship of employer and employee under the Act. In the instant case, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are living separately and according to the claimant-respondent No. 2, she was dependent on the income of her son, deceased Umesh. Merely because there was no divorce between the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, is not a ground to disentitle the respondent No. 2 from claiming compensation . She has deposed before the court that she is residing separately from her husband since last three to four years. So also it may not be possible for claimant-respondent No. 2, to produce documentary proof to establish contract of employment. In view of peculiar family relationship, as rightly held by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hanumant, merely because respondent No. 1 and the deceased were father and son, is not a ground in law to infer absence of relationship of employer and employee under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, the Commissioner has rightly held that there exists the relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the respondent No. 1.” 15. Hence, in view of the material available on record and the position of law, this Court is of the specific opinion that even in the absence of any documentary evidence that could prove that there existed an ‘Employer-Employee Relationship’ between the father i.e. owner of the vehicle and son i.e. Khalasi/Cleaner of the vehicle, it cannot be inferred that no such relationship existed between them as people often engage their kith and kin in employment without any formal documentation. Thus, the learned Tribunal rightly determined the existence of an ‘Employer- Employee Relationship’ between respondent No. 3 Owner and the deceased. 16. So far as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, it is not disputed that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in question, it is only the capacity in which he was travelling that has been disputed. It is admitted on record by the Officer of the Insurance Company that the vehicle in question had a sitting capacity of two people and premium qua driver and cleaner was paid. NAW-1 Rohit Sharma (Law Officer of the Insurance Company) in his cross-examination deposed as under : oDr ?kVuk eSa ml okgu esa lokj ugha FkkA okgu esa cSB dj lokjh dj jgk Fkk ;gh mlds lokjh ds :i esa vk/kkj gSA izn'kZ ,-1 iSdst ikWfylh gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vkj lh ,oa chek ikWfylh ds rgr~ ml okgu dh flfVax dsisflVh 2 gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd bl ikWfylh ds rgr r`rh; i{kdkj] vksu Msest vkSj dEiyljh ilZuy ,DlhMsaV vkWuj de M?kboj dk izhfe;e ys j[kk FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd bl ikWfylh ds rgr ,d fDyuj rFkk ,d M?kboj dk 50&50 #i;s dk izhfe;e ys j[kk gSA ----- fidvi esa M?kboj o [kyklh dh flfVax dsisflVh gksrh gSA^^ 17. In view of the above discussion, as the relationship of ‘Employer-Employee’ is held to be established, it can safely be concluded that the deceased was travelling in the capacity of a Khalasi/Cleaner in the vehicle in question and as per the statement of NAW-1, his risk was covered under the policy as premium qua driver and cleaner was paid. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner. 18. Conclusively, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award dated 02.08.2024 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand in MAC Case No.120/2022 (CIS No120/2022). The present misc. appeal is hence, dismissed 19. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.