APHC010391752010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3460]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 718/2010 Between:

The Apepdcl , Visakhapatnam. ...APPELLANT AND The Commissioner For Wc And Acl Vsp And 4 ...RESPONDENT(S)

Others and Others Counsel for the Appellant:

1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. Y V RAVI PRASAD The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.718 of 2010

JUDGMENT:

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 questioning the Order dated 30.04.2008 in W.C.No.18 of 2006 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-2, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District in awarding compensation of Rs.3,13,089/- to the Claimants.

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

The deceased Bangaru Appalanaidu was a skilled technician working under O.P.No.1 (Contractor). O.P.No.2 had engaged the services of O.P.No.1 for maintenance of electrical lines. O.P.No.1 was paying monthly wage of Rs.3,000/- per month to the deceased. On 10.12.2004, the deceased while working on electrical pole of O.P.No.2 at Chowdari Polem, Kanchugummali Village, and at that time the electric pole broke down and the deceased fell on ground and suffered grievous injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Narsipatnam Hospital, where he had succumbed to his injuries on the same day. As the deceased was aged about 40 years and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, the application was filed seeking compensation.

3. O.P.No.1 i.e. the Contractor filed counter admitting the occurrence of the accident during the course of employment and further admitted to the wages paid and that the deceased was a skilled technician. O.P.No.2 filed counter principally denying the employer and employee relationship. It was pleaded that the deceased was working under O.P.No.1 and not under O.P.No.2 and therefore no liability can be fastened on O.P.No.2.

4. The Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:-

1) Whether there exists the employer and employee relationship between the opposite party-1 and the deceased or not.

2) If such relation exists, whether the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred during the course of and arising out of employment or not.

3) To what amount of compensation the applicants are entitled to receive and who has to pay it.

5. On behalf of the Claimants, the son of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 and one witness to the accident by name Tamarana Sanyasi Naidu was examined as A.W.2. The Claimants on their behalf filed Exs.A.1 to A.4 i.e. F.I.R, Inquest Report, Post-mortem Certificate and Paper Publication respectively.

6. O.P.No.1 did not lead any evidence. O.P.No.2 examined one V. Prasad, Section Officer on their behalf and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.4 i.e. Letter dated 14.08.2006, Work Order dated 30.06.2005, Work Oder No.695 and Chart of Work respectively.

7. The Commissioner held that the O.P.No.2 is the principal employer and therefore he is liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,13,089/- by taking into consideration the notified wages for lineman. Hence, the present C.M.A is filed.

8. Heard Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri Y.V. Ram Prasad, learned counsel for the Respondents.

9. In the present appeal, the defence urged in the counter was reiterated by the counsel for the Appellant and contended that there is no employer and employee relationship and therefore the Commissioner had erred in fixing the liability on O.P.No.2/Appellant.

10. The counsel for the Respondents contended that though the deceased was working under O.P.No.1 he was discharging duties of O.P.No.2 and the O.P.No.2 is liable to pay compensation. The Judgment