Court holding employer liable to pay compensation.

V. Ratnam, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation II, Madras in W. C. Case No. 106 of 1977, on an application filed by the respondent herein under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The case of the respondent was that his son G. Karunanidhi was a workman, employed in the factory of the appellant herein on a monthly wage of Rs. 150 and that on 28th June, 1977, G. Karunanidhi received injuries in the course of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, which later resulted in his death on the same day. The injury, according to the respondent, was sustained by his son while he fell down from the ceiling in the arid tub during the course of his employment claiming that the respondent is a defendant of late G. Karunanidhi and as such entitled to a lump sum compensation to a sum of Rs. 13,500, the respondent herein filed an application in W.C. Case No. 106 of 1977 for an order directing the appellant herein to deposit the compensation,

2. That application was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the appellant had taken insurance policies in the name of the persons working in the establishment of the appellant including the deceased G. Karunanidhi and that his policy number was 9260900732, and that a sum of Rs. 10,000, had been received by the respondent as a compensation from the New India Assurance Company for the death of G. Karunanidhi and having received that amount, it is not open to the respondent to claim any other compensation under the provisions of the Act. The further case of the appellant was that the deceased G. Karunanidhi was working only as a casual labourer and would not come within the language of clauses in schedule II of the Act. The appellant also contended that the deceased G. Karunanidhi had done work which he was not authorised to do and, therefore, no compensation can be claimed on the basis that the injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment by the appellant. The monthly wages of the deceased G. Karunanidhi, according to the appellant, amounted to only Rs. 105. The objection that after receipt of compensation from the New India Assurance Company under the Janata Insurance Scheme, it is not open to the respondent to maintain a claim under the provisions of the Act was reiterated and the appellant prayed for the dismissal of the application

3. Before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation II, Madras, on 22nd August, 1978, the appellant filed an application to implead the New India Assurance Company as a party-second respondent to decide the quantum of compensation. On 25th August, 1978, notice of this application was ordered to the Insurance Company and in response to this, the Insurance Company in its reply, dated 7th September, 1978, stated that its presence as a party to the proceedings is not necessary as the claim of the party under the policy in question had been settled at Rs. 12,000 and that the policy issued by it was not under the provisions of the Act. Ultimately, the Insurance Company was not impleaded as a party-respondent to the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's, Compensation II, Madras,

4. On a consideration of the merits of the claim, the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation II, Madras, held that the deceased G. Karunanidhi was a workman at the tune of the accident as defined under the Act and that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment and therefore, compensation is payable in respect of the death of G. Karunanidhi. Fixing the, daily wage of the deceased G. Karunanidhi at Rs. 3.50, the deceased was held to fall within the wage group 60-90 under schedule IV of the Act and a sum of Rs. 9,780 was computed as the compensation payable by the appellant on account of the accident to G. Karunanidhi in 28th June, 1977, resulting in his death. It is the, correctness o