FAO No. 5648 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 5648 of 2009 (O&M) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ..... Appellant vs Nirmla Devi and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 31.7.2009 whereby the claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs. 3,22,300/- along with interest. Brief facts of the case are that Jai Bhagwan husband of respondent no. 1 and father of respondents no. 2 to 8 was employed with respondent no. 9. On 5.3.2008, while driving Tractor No. HR-10K-8759, belonging to respondent no. 9, he was murdered. FIR was lodged with the police on 9.3.2008. The claim made by the claimants/respondents was allowed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner vide order dated 31.7.2009, which is the subject matter of appeal before this court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that claimants/ respondents failed to establish the employer-employee relationship. The tractor which the deceased was driving was owned by his brother Jai Pal (respondent no. 9) and no evidence was produced to show that the deceased was working as an employee on the insured tractor. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. In the present case the facts regarding the death of Jai Bhagwan is not in dispute. The dispute is sought to be raised on the issue that the claimants failed to establish the employer-employee relationship. They have produced CW2 Rajesh Kumar, who submitted that Jai Bhagwan used to supply sand after loading it in tractor No. HR-10-K-8759 as per direction and order of Jai Pal/ respondent no. 9. He also deposed that Jai Bhagwan was employed as a driver on monthly salary of Rs. 3,500/- with Jai Pal. Respondent no. 9 in his written statement also admitted that Jai Bhagwan was his employee and was paid Rs. 4,000/- per month. On the other hand, the appellant Insurance Company failed to rebut the evidence led by the claimants/respondents that he was not the employee FAO No. 5648 of 2009 -2- of respondent no. 9. Even if he was driving the tractor of his brother, it cannot be said that he cannot work as an employee of the brother. There is no presumption regarding the same. Salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month assessed cannot be said to be on higher side. In view of the above, I do not find merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Since the main appeal is dismissed on merit, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is also dismissed. 10.12.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge