The opposite party in W.C.No.58/98 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation-I/Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai has brought-forth this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act against the order of the said Commissioner dated 06.06.2001 directing the appellant herein/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,24,788/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the respondent herein/claimant.

.2. The respondent herein/applicant had preferred a claim on the file of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation-I/Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai under Section 10 of the Workmens Compensation Act in W.C.No.58/98 for the injuries sustained by him on 012. 1997 from the appellant herein/ opposite party making the following allegations:-

.The respondent herein/applicant is a "Kal Thatcher" and he was engaged by the appellant/opposite party to do some plumbing work in its office building. He was asked to bore a hole in the roof wall of the bank building and on 012. 1997 while he was doing so, he sustained electric shock which ultimately led to a permanent disability at the rate of 60%. The respondent herein/ applicant was engaged by the manager of the appellant bank/opposite party on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs.140/- per day. Subsequent to the accident, the respondents/applicants services were terminated. He was aged about 30 years at the time of accident. A claim was made against the respondent/opposite party through Nirman Mazdoor Panchayat Sangam, but the appellant/ opposite party did not even give a reply. Therefore, the respondent/applicant was constrained to move an application for compensation under Section 10 of the Workmens Compensation Act before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation against the appellant/opposite party.

.3. The claim was resisted by the appellant/opposite party by putting in a counter statement denying the averments made in the application to the effect that the respondent/ applicant was a workman under the appellant bank and hence he was entitled to claim compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act from the appellant/opposite party. It was also contended therein that the appellant/opposite party never engaged the respondent/applicant to carry out the alleged plumbing work in the office building of the appellant/opposite party; that on the other hand, one Jayakumar, a resident of Chakravarthy Nagar, Ayanavaram, Chennai and plumber by profession alone was engaged by the appellant bank/opposite party to lay a pipe for giving connection from the overhead tank to the water cooler fixed in the first floor of the building; that the said Jayakumar carried out the work and received remuneration for the said work; that there was no necessity, whatsoever, for any one to bore the roof as alleged by the respondent/applicant; that the respondent/applicant appeared to be a friend of Jayakumar and he seemed to have sustained a mild electric shock and that there was no occasion for the appellant/opposite party to give treatment to the appellant. The appellant/opposite party had also denied the alleged disability sustained by the respondent/applicant. The appellant/opposite party also submitted in the counter statement that even if the respondent/applicant might have suffered any disability, the same was not the result of any accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under the appellant/opposite party and that hence the claim made by the respondent/applicant for compensation against the appellant/opposite party was not maintainable either in law or on facts. It was also contended therein that the respondent/applicant was not entitled to a sum of Rs.3,89,000/-as claimed by him as compensation. Based on the said pleadings, the appellant/opposite party had prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition preferred by the respondent/applicant.

4. The lower authority, namely Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Chennai conducted an enquiry