[2026:RJ-JP:16454] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2296/2014 Chandrabhan Jat S/o Gopal Lal Jat, aged about 26 years, R/o Village Jharna, Post Mahla, Via Bagru, District Jaipur ----claimant-Appellants Versus 1. Sitaram Choudhary S/o Moti Lal Choudhary, R/o Kharbaso ki Dhani, Ajmer Road, Bhankrota, Jaipur (Employer) 2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, having its regional office at Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur through its regional Manager (insurar) ----Non-claimants-Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Alok Kumar Bakliwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 18/04/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.01.2014, passed by Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act of 1923, Jaipur City, in Case No. WCC/NF 02/2012,whereby the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner rejected the claim of the appellant-claimant. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the claimant-appellant filed a claim petition on 02.01.2012 under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, contending therein that he was employed as a driver of car No. RJ-14-GN- 7166. During the course of his employment, on 21.11.2011, while he was travelling from Chomu to Bassi, he parked the vehicle in front of Dr. Kumar Orthopaedic Center, Khambwala Pulia, Jhotwara [2026:RJ-JP:16454] (2 of 3) [CMA-2296/2014] Road. After parking the car, while he was standing beside the vehicle and moving towards the road, an unknown motorcycle struck him from behind, resulting in grievous injuries and consequent loss of his earning capacity. 3. At the time of the accident, he was receiving a salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The vehicle of respondent No. 1 was insured with respondent No. 2. 4. The claimant, therefore, sought compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with penalty. The Tribunal rejected the claim petition on the ground of lack of evidence to establish the relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and respondent No. 1. 5. Hence, the present appeal has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in his oral evidence, the claimant categorically stated that he was an employee of respondent No. 1. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the evidence of the claimant-appellant remained unrebutted, and therefore, the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner committed an illegality in passing the impugned award. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the accident was neither reported to the authorities nor to the insurance company by the employer. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that during cross-examination by the insurance company, the claimant denied the existence of any employer-employee agreement. 10. The claimant also denied receiving any salary of Rs. 10,000/- through cheque and stated that he was paid in cash. [2026:RJ-JP:16454] (3 of 3) [CMA-2296/2014] 11. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that respondent No. 1 (the employer) never approached either the insurance company or the Tribunal to acknowledge the claimant as his employee. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, contends that the claimant-appellant has utterly failed to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship, and the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has rightly rejected the claim petition. 13. Heard and perused the material available on record. 14. This Court finds that the appellant has failed to establish the employer-employee relationship before the learned Court below. 15. This Court further finds that the findings recorded by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner are not perverse in any manner, and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 16. Hence, the Present Civil Misc. Appeal stands dismissed. 17. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J JUBIN /26