IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 MFA.No. 273 of 2009() --------------------- WCC.31/2003 OF THE COURT OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, KANNUR APPELLANT: APPLICANT ----------------------- KHADEEJA, W/O.IBRAHIM HAJI, FAZAL MANZIL, SHIRIYA P.O., KUMBLA, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: OPP.PARTY ------------------------ 1. A.K.IBRAHIM, S/O.ABDUL KHADER HAJI, SIDDIQUE MOHALLA, DONGRI. BOMBAY, MAHARASHTRA STATE. 2. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., M.G.ROAD, KASARAGOD. 3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KANNUR. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = == == = = = M.F.A.(WCC) NO. 273 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Appellant is the applicant, who is the mother of one Abdulkhader, who is stated to have died in the course of employment. It is alleged that the applicant was the dependent of the deceased who was a workman under the first opposite party. The first opposite party is none other than the father of the deceased. It was contended that the deceased was driving a car bearing No. MH/02J/9834 coming from Kolapur to Kasaragod and when it reached at a place called Ankola, it capsized and Abdulkhader suffered serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The Applicant gave evidence as AW.1. Exts.A1 to A3 were also marked on her side. The second opposite party has filed a chief affidavit and produced the copy of the insurance policy which was marked as Ext.R1. The applicant did not prove any documents to prove that the deceased was employed under the first opposite party, who is his father. Because of the relationship of the parties, the Commissioner for MFA(WCC) 273/2009 2 Workmen's Compensation held that the oral evidence of the applicant by itself cannot be relied upon. Contrary to what has been stated in Ext.A1, in the application, the name and address of the employer is shown as 'self' and the first opposite party did not give any evidence obviously to support the claim of the mother. In such circumstances and in the absence of proof regarding employer - employee relationship, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation dismissed the application. Hence this appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The primary responsibility to prove the employer-employee relationship is on the appellant/claimant which was not satisfied by the appellant as rightly found by the Commissioner. In such circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) KNC/-