The court affirmed the compensation awarded to the Claimant, establishing the employer-employee relationship and validating the evidence supporting the Claimant's injury during employment.

JUDGMENT :

NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.

1. The present C.M.A is filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 questioning the Order dated 30.12.2010 in W.C.No.52 of 2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, Kadapa District.

2. The O.P.Nos.1 to 3 are the Appellants herein.

3. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows:-

One Alladi Prakash Raju (hereinafter referred to as “Claimant”) was working as an Electrician on temporary basis for the past 13 years under O.P.No.3 and was being paid monthly wage of Rs.3,000/- per month. On 19.05.2005, while the Claimant was attending the work in the premises of of A.P. TRANSCO Co., Ltd., T.L.C. Stores, Kadapa, on the instructions of O.P.No.3, he climbed an electrical pole to repair the electrical wires, but unfortunately, he fell down from the pole while doing the work. As a result, his right leg and right wrist were fractured, apart from receiving injuries all over the body. Immediately, the Claimant was admitted in Government Hospital, Kadapa by O.P.No.3. After receiving treatment at Government Hospital, Kadapa, the Claimant received treatment at Private Hospitals in Puttur and Kadapa. It was pleaded that the Claimant spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards hospital treatment and that he became permanently disabled. As the accident occurred in the course of employment, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was sought for.

4. A counter was filed on behalf of Opposite Parties contending that there was no employer and employee relationship and consequently denied the liability of any compensation.

5. Based on the pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:-

1) Whether the Applicant is a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting disability?

2) What was the age of injured applicant at the time of accident?

3) What were the wages paid to the injured applicant at the time of accident?

4) What was the loss of earning capacity suffered by injured applicant and what was the percentage of disability faced by him?

5) What is the amount of compensation payable?

6) Who are liable to pay the compensation?

6. The Claimant himself was examined as A.W.1 and he reiterated the averments made in the claim application and through him Exs.A.1 to A.5 i.e. Extract copy of Wound Certificate, Attested copy of the Accident Register, Office copy of the Legal Notice, Reply Notice and Medical Disability Certificate respectively were marked. One Kathi Poulu was examined as A.W.2 and he deposed that he used to work along with the applicant under O.P.No.3 and stated that on 19.05.2005 while the applicant was climbing the electrical pole fell down from the electrical pole. Similarly, another co-employee of the Claimant by name Mallakunta Ramanjaneyulu Reddy was examined as A.W.3. A.W.3 also deposed that he used to work along with the applicant under O.P.No.3 and stated that on 19.05.2005 while the applicant was climbing the electrical police fell down from the electrical pole.

7. On behalf of the Opposite Parties, one P.S.S. Prasad, Assistant Engineer, A.P. TRANSCO, Kadapa was examined as R.W.1. In his deposition, he denied the employer and employee relationship between the Claimant and O.P.No.3.

8. The Commissioner taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that the Claimant met with the accident while he was discharging duty assigned by O.P.No.3, considering the disability at the rate of 40% and taking into consideration the age of the Claimant, awarded compensation of Rs.1,68,518/-. Hence, the present C.M.A is filed.

9. Heard Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel for the Appellant- Insurance Company and Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the Respondents.

10. The counsel for the Appellant contended that there was no employer and employee relationship between the Claimant and O.P.No.3