28-7507, but the owner is a resident of Tamil Nadu State and the lorry was in Chitradurga Town and the deceased was working as a driver in Mubarak Transport office at Chitradurga, as the deceased was also a resident of Chitradurga Town has taken the lorry and met with an accident. Therefore, it is proved that the deceased was not the employee of respondent No.1. Further more, there is no evidence on record produced by the claimants to prove that respondent No.1 - owner of the lorry has engaged the services of the deceased as a driver in the lorry. On the way, if some other person has instructed the deceased and the deceased met with an accident, the owner of the lorry cannot be said that he is an employer of the said deceased. Therefore, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjeev Kumar Samrat case supra, is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, the relationship of employer and employee between respondent No.1 and the deceased is not proved. When there is no relationship proved between the employer and employee, then the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the ownerrespondent No.1. Therefore, the findings made by the learned Commissioner in this regard are perverse and contrary to the
