The TCR which has been requisitioned and perused has on record Ex.PW1/A, the statement of Jivender Kumar, s/o Shri Prahald Singh i.e. the appellant-1 herein, the father of the deceased, who claimed that the claimants were entitled to get compensation under the EC Act as their son had died during the course of employment with the respondent no.1. The cross-examination of this witness shows variant statements made by the father of the deceased who stated initially that his deceased son late Deepanshu Verma was working with Shri Goldy and not with Shri Rubal Saxena, the respondent no.1 arrayed on record qua which the averments made in the affidavit of the witness are to the effect that his deceased son was employed with Shri Rubal Saxena. He further went on to state that there was no documentary evidence with him to prove the employment of his deceased son with Shri Goldy and then volunteered further that his deceased son Deepanshu Verma was working with Shri Rubal Saxena and not with Shri Goldy. He stated further that he had not filed any document in relation to tour and travels business of the respondent no.1 i.e. Rubal Saxena and that he did not know whether the respondent no.1 was running a business of tour and travels. He admitted that the vehicle bearing no. DL8C-AE-2383 was not a taxi and was a personal vehicle. He admitted that the family members, relatives and friend of the respondent no.1 Shri Rubal Saxena and his deceased son were going to visit Nainital and Ranikhet, Uttrakhand and that FAO 224/2016 page no. 2 of 4
