ASHOK B SUREBAN Vs. NEELAVVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a contractor's appeal directed against the order dated 29. 3. 1997 in case No. Dwci:f-158:93 passed by the workmen's compensation commissioner, dharwad district, hubli, insofar as the same related to recording of the finding that the respondent No. 6, hubli dharwad municipal corporation is entitled to be indemnified of the award (rs. 78,824) in question as contemplated under Section 12 (2) of the workmen's compensation act.

(2.) THE appellant contractor is represented by Mr. S. V. Shastri. The respondent nos. 1 to 5, the l. rs. Of the deceased were represented by Mr. U. r. malimath, whereas, the contesting respondent No. 6 the hubli dharwad corporation is represented by kesvy and company. Before proceeding further, i feel it appropriate to set out the facts of the case in brief. They are as hereunder: the l. rs. Of the deceased, one yellappa soluri yeleval, the respondent nos. 1 to 5 herein, filed claim petition under the workmen's compensation Act, henceforth in brief 'the act', before the commissioner for workmen's compensation and labour officer at hubli, henceforth in brief referred to as 'the wcc', claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 from the respondent No. 6 hubli dharwad corporation and the appellant contractor herein. In the prayer part of the said claim petition, the respondent nos. 1 to 5 had prayed that the wcc be pleased to direct the respondent No. 6 and appellant herein (they being the respondent nos. 1 and 2 before the wcc) to pay compensation together with interest. That both the contestants, i. e. , the respondent No. 6 as well as the appellant contractor had filed their detailed objections statement independently. In doing that, when the respondent No. 6 while trying to avoid the liability, prayed the wcc to fix the liability on the appellant contractor whereas, on the other hand, the appellant contractor while denying the claim has contended that the work in question was undertaken by him subject to control and supervision of the respondent No. 6 and that in the event, the wcc were to come to the conclusion that the deceased died while working with the respondent No. 6, and as such the principal employer be held responsible for payment of the compensation.

(3.) IN the light of the pleadings of the contending parties before the wcc, the wcc formulated six points for his consideration and one among the said points formulated by him, the point No. 4 was as to whether the l. rs. Of the deceased, the respondent nos. 1 to 5 were entitled for the compensation claimed and if so what was the compensation amount and from whom they were entitled to recover the same. Before the wcc, when the respondent no. ,1, the wife of the deceased had adduced her side of the evidence in support of the claim made, the appellant contractor on the other side had adduced his side of the contra evidence. On the other hand, the respondent No. 6 hubli dharwad corporation did not adduce its side of the evidence and furthermore, it did not challenge the evidence adduced by respondent nos. 1 to 5 inasmuch as it had not cross-examined the respondent No. 1 examined as pw 1 before the wcc. It is to be added here that it is the appellant contractor who had challenged the said evidence inasmuch as he had cross-examined pw 1 before the wcc.