speak about employment of the deceased, apart from himself, is his employer i.e., opposite party No.1. In the present case, opposite party No. i is set ex parte. The applicants through their claim petition and the evidence of A.W. t have contended that there is employee and employer relationship between the deceased and opposite party No.1. The documents marked as Exs.A-l to A-7, which are police records support the case of the applicarrts that the deceased was working as labourer. Further, Ex.A-B to A-12, which are documents pertaining to the vehicle involved in the accident, reflect the name of opposite party No.l as owner of the vehicle. In the said circumstances, opposite party No.2, which is disputing the said relationship has to come up with evidence to disprove the case set up by the applicants, but the same is not done. It only relied upon the cross-examination of A.W. 1, where the witness admitted that she did not file any proof of employment, age and wage of her deceased husband. The said admission does not clearly prove that, there is no employee and employer relationship between the deceased and opposite party No.1. Apart from that, opposite party No.2 did not adduce any oral or documentaqr evidence before the Commissioner to prove that there was no employee and employer relationship. Furthermore, it did not advance any arguments to clearly put forth its contentions before the
