Keshavaraju Yadagiri Venkata Ranga Rao & Anr. v. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation

by the first respondent herein allowing W.C. No. 9 of 1998 filed under Sec.10(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, directing the petitioners herein to pay compensation of Rs.22,522/- with interest at 6% p.a. from

3.9.1995 till the date of deposit for the injuries sustained by the second respondent herein in an accident, the present writ petition is filed. The second respondent while working at the construction site of Over Head Tank at Kusumanchli village under the employment of the petitioners herein fell down on the ground and sustained injuries while carrying material from at a height of 30’. She made an application to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour on 5.9.1995 to the effect that seven years back she worked under the employment of the petitioners herein, who were contractors for the construction of the Over Head Tank. The petitioners contested the claim denying the material averments. The second respondent in respect of her claim, got herself examined a PW-1 and also examined two co- workers as PWs. 3 and 4. PW-2 is the doctor who examined the claimant – second respondent. Exs. A-1 to A-4 were marked on her behalf.

The first respondent on an overall appraisal of both oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the second respondent is entitled to compensation under Sec. 4(1)(c) of Workmen’s Compensation Act jointly and severally from the petitioners herein to the tune of Rs.22,522/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed by the contractors. Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent. The first respondent, on consideration of the evidence of PWs.3 and 4, who are the co-workers of the second respondent and Ex.A-4 certificate issued by the Gram Panchayath, Kusumanchi has believed that the second respondent was under the employment of the petitioners. It has further considered the submission of the second respondent that she was persuaded by the petitioner No.1 not to file any case for compensation and that he would pay the compensation.

On the face of this evidence, the first respondent has rightly observed that contention of the petitioners that apart from the delay in claiming compensation, is no relationship, as workman and employer, cannot be accepted. Having gone through the material available on record and the findings recorded by the first respondent, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the order impugned. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari September 23, 2010 MAS