THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.M.A.No.1981 of 2000 O R D E R: This appeal is filed against the order dated 26.10.1999, passed in W.C.No.122 of 1997, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad, whereunder the petition was dismissed. 2. The deceased is said to be working as a Cleaner on the vehicle DCM lorry bearing No.AET 1625 belonging to the 1st respondent. The said vehicle was insured by the second respondent/insurance company. It was claimed by the claimant, before the learned Commissioner that the deceased was 18 years old and was working as a Cleaner on the said lorry and he was paid Rs.1,000/- per month. On the fateful day of accident on 04.07.1996, the said vehicle met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of another lorry bearing No.T.N.37-Z- 0087 due to which, the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling turned turtle leading to injuries and ultimately he succumbed to injuries. A claim for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was made against both the respondents. 3. The 1st respondent herein, who is the owner of the vehicle filed a counter before the learned Commissioner admitting that the deceased Yousuf was employed by him as a Cleaner on the said vehicle AET 1625 and he was being paid Rs.1,000/- per month. It is also stated that the deceased was involved in the accident and succumbed to injuries. However, the liability to pay compensation was denied and in any case, it was mentioned that the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent who alone has to pay compensation. 4. The 2nd respondent/insurance company also filed a counter denying all the averments of the claim including the employment and age of the deceased and identity of the deceased. 5. After considering the evidence of PW.1/claimant, the learned Commissioner while considering the claim, came to the conclusion that there is any amount of discrepancy in the name of the deceased, viz., it is mentioned as Yusuf. The relationship of employer and employee was not evidenced by any document and merely on the basis of admission of R.1, the learned Commissioner was not prepared to accept existence of the relationship. Learned Commissioner also noticed that while the age of the deceased was 18 years as per PW.1, the same was not tallying with her version in the chief. Thus, primarily on the ground that the relationship of employer and employee having not been established by the claimant, the claim petition was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company/second respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the discrepancy is minor and ought not to have been taken into consideration to disentitle the claim. In the record that is, in the claim petition, the deceased is described only as Yousuf. Further, in Ex.A.1, FIR, it is described as the deceased. In Ex.A.2 panchnama, the name of the deceased is mentioned as Yusuf. In Ex.A.3 report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector mentions the name of the deceased against column 8 as Mohammed Yusuf, whereas postmortem certificate mentions the name of the deceased as Sk.Yusuf. Further Ex.A.5 the charge sheet mentions the name of the deceased as Sk.Yusuf. Therefore, several discrepancies in the documents of the claimant himself resulted in a doubt with respect to the identity of the deceased, resulting the rejection of claim as sought for, for the death of the deceased, who is said to be working as a Cleaner. He was admittedly only 18 or 19 years and there is no documentary evidence nor any independent evidence with respect to proof of his age, employment, wages, which are paid etc., The learned Commissioner, therefore, has rightly disbelieved the said claim and keeping in view the very discrepancy held in the name and identity of the deceased and in the absence of the evidence, the Commissioner had no option to reject the said claim. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that these are only minor discrepancies cannot be sustained, as the claimants are not taken any efforts to satisfy or remove the said discrepancy. 8. Further the relationship of employer and employee must be established. Merely on the basis of the counter filed by the first respondent/owner, it cannot be taken that the relationship stands accepted and the compensation does not necessarily follow inasmuch as the insurance company is disputing the said claim. Except the evidence of PW.1, mother of the deceased PW.1-claimant, there is no other evidence regarding any of the suspicious circumstances. 9. Therefore, the finding of the learned Commissioner does not call for any interference. 10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and no merits in this appeal. ____________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J 18th November, 2008 PNV