V.P. Tyagi, J.
1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by Panna under Section 80 of the Workmen' Compensation Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and is directed against the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. Kota Division, Kota, dated May 20, 1969, distrusting the appellant's claim.
2. The case of the appellant before the Commissioner was that his wife Mst. Raji was in the employment of respondent Sardar Surendra Singh who had taken a contract near Mangrol. Mst. Raji, along with other laborers, was being taken by the respondent to the sate of the work on March 8, 1967 but before the truck could reach the destination, it overturned with a result that Mst. Raji expired on the pot. A claim of Rs. 7000/ was filed by her husband appellant Panna under the Act. Sardar Surendra Singh denied his liability and came out with a plea that he did not employ Mst. Raji on the day when the accident had taken place for did he have any contract of constructing a bridge on the road for which the alleged employment is said to have taken place.
3. It may be mentioned that along with Mst. Raji, few other labourers died on account of that accident and their heirs also filed compensation claims before the Commissioner, It appears that the proceedings in all those claims were taken together. However, the learned Commissioner, after recording the evidence of the various claimants, came to the conclusion that the clarinet failed to prove the employment of the deceased person with the respondent and therefore, he found hem self unable to decree the claims under the provisos of the Act It is against his order of the learned Commissioner that the present appeal has been filed.
4. Shri Daleep Singh, appearing on behalf of the appellant urged that the statement of Panna clamant finds corroboration from the independent testimony of Seth Motilal who has been examined as PW. 5. These two statements, according to the learned Counsel, go to establish the relationship of master and servant between the respondent and Mst. Raji and as such, the status of Mst. Paji has been proved to be that of a workman under the provisions of the Act.
5. I very carefully perused the statement of Panna and Seth Motilal. None of these two witnesses are on a position to depose as to and what type of contract was taken by respondent Surendra Singh for which Mst. Raji is alleged to have been employed by him. Seth Motilal states that Surendra Singh had a work towards Ayana while the case of Panna is that Mst. Raji was employed to work at village Jaloda. The onus to prove the status of the deceased person as a workman lies on the clamant who has invoked the provisions of the Act, In my opinion, the learned Commissioner has rightly held that the claimant has utterly tailed to prove that Mst. Raji was employed by the respondent to work on contract which he had taken from the Chambal Project. No evidence has been brought on the record by the claimant that Surendra Singh had taken any contract to construct bridge on the road near village Jaloda and as such, in the absence of the proof about the states of Mst. Raji as being a workman under the provisions of the Act, the learned Commissioner had no option but to reject the claim of the claimant. In this view of the matter, it is difficult for this Court to hold that Mst. Raji died during and to the course of her employment with Surendra Singh. The appeal therefore fails and is hereby dismissed.
6. Since nobody Las appeared on behalf of the respondent, no order is to costs.