JUDGMENT :

M. Venkata Ramana, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 31.12.2003 of the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur (for short, 'Commissioner') in W.C. No. 10 of 2002(F).

2. The 2nd respondent before the Commissioner is the appellant. The respondents 1 to 4 were the applicants (claimants) and the 1st respondent before the Commissioner is the 5th respondent in this appeal.

3. Sri Harijana Babu Rajendra Prasad, Son of Sri Pedda Obulesu was a Village Electricity Worker at Yadiki Gram Panchayat. The Ist respondent is the wife, the 4th respondent is the mother and the respondents 2 and 3 are the daughter and son respectively of Sri Harijana Babu Rajendra Prasad. He died due to a fall from an electric pole while working on it near Ankalamma street, Yadiki village, when he was attending to repairs of LT & HT lines managed by the appellant, who is representing A.P. Transco.

4. Cr. No. 43 of 1999 of Yadiki Police Station was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on a complaint by Sri Ramesh Babu, brother of the deceased, in respect of the above incident. This incident, according to the respondents 1 to 4 occurred during and in the course of employment for the appellant as well as the 5th respondent.

5. On such basis, they claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- against the appellant as well as the 5th respondent on the ground that the deceased was being paid monthly wages of Rs. 600/-, by the appellant through the 5th respondent.

6. The 5th respondent filed a counter before the commissioner stating that the deceased was being paid Rs. 600/- per month towards salary and Rs. 600/- as grant-in-aid paid by the appellant. It also admitted the nature of the incident and being the cause for death of the deceased while contending that he was working under the directions of the appellant.

7. The appellant also filed a detailed counter before the Commissioner denying the entire incident as well as the deceased being employed on its behalf as a worker. Disputing that the incident occurred leading to death of the deceased during and in the course of employment on its behalf, the appellant contended that the deceased was employed as Village Electricity Worker under the 5th respondent and thus, denied the jural relationship of 'master and servant' between itself and the deceased at the time of the accident. It also contended that attending to repairs at the electric pole at the time of the accident by the deceased was in violation of appointment orders issued to the deceased and thus, it denied its liability while also questioning the quantum of compensation claimed.

8. On the material and pleadings, the Commissioner settled the following issues for the purpose of enquiry.

"1. Whether the deceased was in the employment of the OP and whether the deceased died during the course of his employment and worker within the meaning of the Act?

2. If yes, to what compensation the applicants are entitled?

3. Who are the dependants and legal heirs to receive the compensation amount?"

9. Before the Commissioner, the 1st respondent examined himself as A.W. 1 and marked Ex. A1 to Ex. A9. No evidence was let in on behalf of the 5th respondent. Whereas R.W. 1 was examined on behalf of the appellant and did not mark any document on its behalf.

10. Basing on such material, the Commissioner accepted the claim of the respondents 1 to 4 holding that at the time of the incident the deceased was working for the appellant and that it occurred during and in the course of such employment. Thus holding, the appellant as well as the 5th respondent were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,19,940/- to the respondents 1 to 4 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, in default to pay interest at 9% p.a. thereon from the date of the accident till realisation.

11. The appellant has questioned this order in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal raising various grounds.

12. Sri Y. Nagi