THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1861 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed W.C.Case No.127 of 1994 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,0000/-. It was pleaded that he was engaged as a labourer for cutting sugarcane by respondent No.2, owner of the tractor insured with the 3rd respondent, and when the 1st respondent was driving the same on 15.04.1992 from Gokavaram to Bhimadole sugar factory, an accident occurred and the appellant received serious injuries to left foot. He was said to have been treated in Government Hospital at Eluru and rods were inserted in the leg. Mention was also made to a crime said to have been registered by the police. He stated that the accident occurred on account of the rashness on the part of the 1st respondent. He pleaded that he was being paid Rs.75/- per day and that he was aged 20 years at the time of accident. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, a counter affidavit was filed opposing the case. They denied the facts pleaded by the appellant in all respects. The 3rd respondent filed a separate counter affidavit opposing the case. In addition to the grounds pleaded by respondents 1 and 2, the 3rd respondent stated that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the appellant and respondent No.2. Certain other grounds were also urged. Through order, dated 20.07.2002, the Commissioner dismissed the case. Hence, this appeal. Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanaratya, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G.S.,Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The appeal against the 2nd respondent was dismissed for default on 28.01.2010. It is also stated that he is no more. The appellant was not sure as to the nature of employment. He stated that he was engaged as a cooli for cutting sugarcane. The respondents flatly denied the averment as to the engagement of the appellant. Therefore, heavy burden rested upon the appellant to prove the fact that he was employed with the 2nd respondent. The evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant comprised of his own deposition and the evidence of a Doctor. Except that, no other material was placed to establish the relationship of the employee and employer between himself and the 2nd respondent. The Commissioner took all these aspects into account and dismissed the case. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner. Therefore, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 07.12.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1861 2003 Date: 07.12.2011 JSU