IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO(MVA) No.473 of 2010. Date of decision: 01.07.2011. Joginder Kaur & Another … …Appellants. Versus Nirmal Singh … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1No. For the Appellants: Mr.Surender Verma, Advocate vice Mr.Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Jagdish Thakur, Advocate vice Mr.N.K. Thakur, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act dismissing the claim preferred by the appellants. 2. The ground on which the Commissioner dismissed the petition was that neither the employment of the deceased, who was the son of the claimant, nor the ownership of the vehicle, has been proved on the record despite number of opportunities having been granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the Registration Certificate 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement?yes. 2 placed on the record of the file which is not proved in accordance with law as proof of ownership of the vehicle. Even if this is accepted, the second hurdle to be crossed is the proof of employment of the deceased which has not been established on the record, save and except, by way of statement by the one of the claimants. 3. I have gone through the evidence in detail. I do not find any ground for interference in the order passed by the learned Court below, more especially when there is no proof of this fact which is in issue, despite repeated opportunities having been granted. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. July 1, 2011. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.