The absence of notice under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act does not bar a claim if the employer was aware of the accident, affirming the established employer-employee relationship and the rightful claim for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M. ADIGA, J.

1. This appeal is by the respondent in ECA .No.1/2019 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hunsur being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 29.11.2021, passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1929 (for short 'Commissioner').

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Commissioner.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant (respondent before 'Commissioner') is the owner of a workshop by name 'Ganesha Engineering Works', situated at B.M.bypass road, Hunsur. The petitioner, was an employee of respondent and was working as welder on wages of Rs.400/- per day. The petitioner was discharging his duty as a welder on the instructions and directions of respondent. The respondent had taken contract of house roofing work of one Mr.Madhu S/o Shivalingappa at Halagere, Hunsuru. On 04.11.2017 as directed by the respondent the petitioner was working as a welder, in the house of Madhu along with one Nawaz and Sudeep. While petitioner was discharging his duty, a welding machine fell on his left arm from the roof and he sustained grievous injuries to his left arm. Immediately, the co- worker Nawaz and Sudeep took him to KR Hospital for treatment. Due to injuries sustained in the incident, the petitioner has sustained permanent disability of 31%. He had spent about Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation expenses, special diet and miscellaneous expenses. With these reasons, petitioner prayed to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. The contentions of the respondent were that he denied the petition averments. He has contended that he was the owner of 'Ganesh Engineering Works' at Hunsur. He further stated that he was a contractor and used to take contract of Government tenders and also private contract work. He used to give the said work to sub-contractors and get the work done. The sub- contractor use to secure manpower and materials and complete contract work on certain terms and conditions. He further contended that he did not engage any employees to do his contract work. He denied his relationship with petitioner as employer and employee. He also denied that he took contract of house roofing work of Madhu S/o Shivalingappa. He has also contended that the petitioner was working under one Mr.Nawaz. The said Nawaz sometimes used to do sub- contract work under respondent. With these reasons, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the commissioner framed following issues:

i. Whether the petitioner proves that he was working under the respondent as an employee at the time of the alleged accident?

ii. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries at the alleged accident during the course of his employment with the respondent?

iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? if so, at what rate?

iv. What order or award?

6. The petitioner to prove his case examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and got marked Exs-P1 to P63. Respondent examined three witnesses as RW-1 to RW-3 and got marked Exs-R1 and Ex-R2. (However the examination of witnesses on behalf of respondent is mentioned as nil in the annexure of impugned judgment.)

7. After hearing the arguments the Commissioner answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and directed respondent to pay compensation of Rs.7,49,056/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of occurrence till deposit of the amount by the impugned judgment and award dated 29.11.2021. The same is challenged in t