FAO No. 4755 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 4755 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.12.2010 Smt. Sohan Devi and another ..... Appellants vs Satish Kumar and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. P. S. Jakhar, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 6.1.2010 passed by the Commissioner, under Workmen's Compensation Act, Sirsa camp at Fatehabad (for short, “the Commissioner”), whereby he dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants. Brief facts of the case as are available on record are that on 14.2.2004 Rajpal, aged 26 years, who was working as driver with respondent no. 1, was standing at Taxi Union Stand Fatehabad with Esteem Car bearing No. HR- 10A-0200. Hans Raj alias Hansa who was also working as driver came at the Taxi stand. It was alleged that at about 10.00 a.m., Hans Raj @ Hansa alongwith his two companions took Rajpal with the car by making the excuse to go somewhere. Thereafter Rajpal did not return back to Fatehabad. The matter was reported to the police about kidnapping of Rajpal by above said Hans Raj. On 19.2.2004, dead body of Rajpal was recovered from the canal. FIR No. 132 dated 21.2.2004 under Section 302/201/34 IPC was got registered against Hansa and others at Police Station City, Fatehabad. As Rajpal died during the course of employment with respondent no. 1, the appellants filed claim petition seeking compensation. The same having been dismissed, the appellants are before this court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence led by the appellants has not been considered by the learned Commissioner who wrongly rejected their claim petition. Respondent no. 1 had admitted the fact about the employment of deceased Rajpal in his written statement. The prayer is for setting aside the order of Commissioner and grant of compensation. FAO No. 4755 of 2010 -2- After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the paper-book, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The appellants were to prove the relationship of employee and employer between deceased Rajpal and Satish Kumar respondent no. 1, but they failed to prove this fact which was main basis for rejection of their claim. To prove this fact, the claimants/appellants have not led any independent evidence. They have not produced any taxi driver in support of their claim that the deceased was working as driver with respondent no. 1, who in fact is brother of the deceased. Further respondent no. 1 though filed his written statement admitting the employment of deceased with him but failed to produce any documentary evidence in support thereof. Considering the fact that the appellants have failed to prove the fact of employee-employer relationship between the deceased and respondent no. 1, who is the real brother of the deceased, I find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 21.12.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge