( 1 ) JUDGMENT :the District Manager food Corporation of India, Kancharapalem of Visakhapatnam preferred this appeal challenging the order of the Commissioner, workmen s Compensation in W. C. No. 11 of 1996 dated 5-2-1997. ALD District Manager, FCU, Kancharapalem v. G. V. Ratnam (Dr. G. Yethirajulu, J.) 147

( 2 ) THE brief averments of the claim The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed petition are as follows: with costs. The petitioner is the wife of the deceased by name G. Rama Rao. The deceased was employed by the Food Corporation of India ( the Corporation for brevity) as an electrician and was undertaking the job of electrical work in FCI Godowns, kancharapalem. The deceased worked as an electrician under the respondent since 1986 and was paid wages at Rs. 50/- per day. On 15-7-1994 at about 10-30 a. m. , while the deceased was working on the electric poles of the Corporation Godown, he was electrocuted and due to that he fell down from the pole, received injuries and died while undergoing treatment in the hospital. He was aged about 31 years by the date of accident and was expecting regularisation of his service with the Corporation.

( 3 ) THE accident occurred while the deceased "was on duty and he died in course of his employment. A notice of the accident was served on the respondent- corporation on the same day and also through a lawyer notice dated 26-10-1995 which was received by it on 31-10-1995. The respondent did not pay any compensation to the petitioner. Therefore she requested to award a sum of Rs. 83,192/- towards compensation under the Workmen s compensation Act, 1923 ( the Act for brevity) with interest at 12% per annum.

( 4 ) THE respondent resisted the claim contending that the application is not maintainable under law, that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the respondent and the deceased, and there was no post of electrician in the Corporation. The deceased was never appointed or worked as electrician and no payment was made to him either towards wages or salary, as stated by the claimant. There is no liability for the opposite party to pay any compensation.

( 5 ) THE Commissioner, Workmen s compensation, Visakhapatnam on the basis of the above pleadings framed the following issues for determination: (1) Whether the deceased worked as an electrician in opposite party s organisation and he met with an accident during the course of his employment? (2) Whether he was paid Rs. 50/-per day as wages? (3) Whether his age was 30 years at the time of accident? (4) Whether the O. P. is liable to pay compensation to the applicant?

( 6 ) AFTER taking into consideration the evidence of A. Ws. l to 3 adduced on behalf of the claimant and Exs. A. l to A. 5 marked on behalf of the claimant, and R. W. I examined on behalf of the Corporation, the commissioner came to the conclusion that there was employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the corporation, that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs. 83,192/- towards compensation with costs and interest @ 12% per annum.

( 7 ) THE respondent-Corporation being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner preferred this appeal challenging its validity and legality. Point:

( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the corporation during the course of arguments submitted that there was no employer and employee relationship between the corporation and the deceased, that the claimant failed to issue notice under section 10 of the Act making the claim for compensation, that under Section 4-A (3) of the Act the claimant is entitled to interest only @ 6% and not @ 12% per annum. The learned Counsel further submitted that since there was no relationship of employer and employee between the Corporation and the deceased, the petition itself is not maintainable and the claimant is not entitled for any compensation.

( 9 ) THE petitioner who is the wife of the deceased reiterated her stand in her evidence as AW. l that her husband