respondent with the 2nd respondent, they have opted for the oral evidence of the 1st respondent as AW1 and another witness as AW2 in the above matter. As far as AW1 is concerned, Ext.A4 which is the certified copy of the final report filed by the police with regard to the accident involved in this case, depicts him as a student. When AW1 was confronted in cross-examination about the said aspect seen in the document produced by him, he would contend that it is not correct. It is pertinent to note that the proof affidavit filed by AW1 before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner does not disclose that the 2nd respondent whom he refer as 1st opposite party, is his father. It is also not possible to discern from the above proof affidavit about the identity of the shop of the 2nd respondent where the 1st respondent is said to have been working as an employee. The evidence tendered by AW2 is to the effect that the 1st respondent had brought some documents and its photostat copies to him on 24.05.2012 at Oorakam Cherippady, under the instructions of the 2nd respondent, and that during the return journey, the 1st respondent met with an accident. The above evidence of AW2 could no way set right the drawback of the 1st respondent’s case due to absence of convincing evidence regarding his capacity as an employee under the 2nd respondent. It has to be stated here that the omission on the part of the 1st
