B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant is the Opposite party in W. C. No. 25 of 1989 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, Guntur Region, Guntur who suffered an award under Sec. 3 of the Workmen s Compensation Act (in short the Act) wherein holding that the workman Mr. Sambasiva Rao died due to the injuries suffered by him during the course of employment under the appellant, the learned Commissioner awarded Rs. 26,432-64 ps by way of compensation to the respondents herein who are the legal heirs of the deceased sambasiva Rao.

( 2 ) MR. G. Ramachandra Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the appreciation of evidence in the case by the learned commissioner is opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case and has a preference to ocular evidence as against the documentary evidence proving that the deceased was not an employee of the appellant at the time of the accident and his death. It is further contended by him that the inferences drawn by the learned Commissioner against the appellant were unjustified, the best evidence possible, both oral and documentary, was produced which the claimants could not meet with their oral evidence which is tarnished with contradictions and interestedness.

( 3 ) MR. N. Subba Rao, the learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants while resisting the contentions as above has pointed out that the appreciation of evidence by the learned Commissioner is reasonable, supported by materials and not tainted with capriciousness or arbitrariness and therefore this Court in the appeal may not, in the ordinary circumstances, interfere or set aside the said award. It is also his contention that if the case does not fall under sec. 3 of the Act, it must be brought at least under Sec. 12 of the Act making the appellant liable for the employee of the customer who died in the accident in the course of the employment of at least under the customer who stands in the position of a contractor. Mr. Ramachandra Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant has squarely dismissed such an argument by saying that at no cost Sec. 12 of the Act can be attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case as it is nobody s case that another person under whom the deceased might be working was engaged or utilised as a contractor by the appellant for any purpose at the relevant time. The learned Counsel for the appellant is emphatic that this appeal is confined to the only question whether there was relationship of master and servant between the appellant and the deceased sambasiva Rao and the rest of the findings leading to the award are not challenged.

( 4 ) THE admitted and proved facts in the case may provide an anchor to bind the controversies for determination. The appellant is a partnership ginning Mill called ranga Cotton Ginning Mills . Its business is found to be ginning process of the cotton brought by the customers. The theory that it trades in cotton seeds and cotton is rightly rejected in view of the evidence in the case. On 12-5-1988 the deceased Sambasiva Rao met with an accident within the premises of the mills of the appellant while engaged in loading and unloading cotton and he succumbed to the injuries on 16-5-1988. The respondents/claimants pleaded that the deceased was working under the appellant at the relevant time and suffered the accident and injuries and died in the course of the employment and sought compensation under Sec. 3 of the Act. The appellant denied such a relationship with the deceased and on the other hand contended that there was no practice of employing or engaging such workers like mutta workers for loading and unloading which was the job of the customers who bring cotton for ginning in the mills to engage such persons and as such the deceased was actually engaged by one M/s. Lakshmi cotton Enterprises who had brought cotton for ginning in the mills at the relevant time. The wife of the deceased examined herself as A. W. 1 and two witn

Click Here to Read the rest of this document