"19. To substantiate his second contention, it wouid be essential for the petitioner to establish, that Shijo having occupied the shoes of the owner, cannot be treated as the third party. Only factua! details brought on record through reiiGble evidence,can discharge the aforesaid onus. During the course of hearing, despite our queries, leamed counsel for thepetitioner couid not point out the relationship between Shijo and the owner of the motorcycle in the acGident. Shijo is not shown to be the employee of the owner. He was not even shown as the representative of the owner. In order to establish the relGtionshipbetween the Shijo and the owner, the petitionerInsurance Company could have easily produced either the owner himseif as a witness, or even the claimants themselves as witnesses. These, or other witnesses, who could have brought out the relationship between the owner and Shijo, were not producedbythe petitionerherein;beforetheTribunal. The petitioner has, therefore, not discharged the onus which rested on its shoulders. Since the reiationship between the Shijo and the owner has not been established, nor the capacity in which he was riding the vehicle has been brought out, it is not possibie " for us to conclude, that Shijo while riding the motorcycle on the fateful day, was an agent, employee or representative of the owner. It was open to the petitioner to defeat the cbim
