OM PRAKASH Vs. FATEH CHAND AGARWAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant -claimant under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), against the order dated 23.6.2009, passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in WCCNF 59/2007, whereby the Commissioner has dismissed the claim petition of the appellant -claimant. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant -claimant filed the claim petition before the Commissioner, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him on 12.5.2007, when he was repairing the vehicle owned by the respondent no. 1 and insured with the respondent no. 2 -Company. The said petition was resisted by the respondent No. 2 Insurance -Company, by contending inter alia that the respondent no. 1 was not the employer of the appellant -claimant as both were real brothers, and that in absence of existence of employer -employee relationship, the respondent Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay the compensation. The Commissioner, after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the said claim petition of the appellant claimant, against which the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the Learned Counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, it appears that the appellant -claimant had filed the F.I.R. in respect of the alleged accident, about 58 days after the incident in question. It is not disputed that the appellant and the respondent no. 1, who was owner of the vehicle in question, were brothers. As rightly submitted by the Learned Counsel for the respondent the appellant could not be said to be the employee of the respondent no. 1, who is his own brother. The Commissioner has after considering the entire evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition, vide the impugned judgment and order. The Learned Counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the said order. Even otherwise, there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal, and therefore, also the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.