LAWS(KAR)-2002-2-65

THIRTAMURTHY Vs. RADHA

Decided On February 20, 2002
THIRTHAMURTHY Appellant
V/S
RADHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is listed for admission after issue of notice.

(2.) THIS appeal by the employer preferred under section 30 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is directed against the order dated 13. 1. 2000 passed by the Labour Officer and the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at hassan. The employer, aggrieved by the order awarding compensation of a sum of rs. 1,05,895 with further interest at 12 per cent on this amount from the date of the accident till the date of deposit of the amount awarded has challenged the award on several grounds.

(3.) THE brief facts leading to the above appeal are that one Rangaiah aged about 28 years died on 11. 3. 1994 due to falling of a tree which was located in the estate of the appellant and which fell on the person while it was in the process of being cut and removed by a person who had been authorised by the employer. That the death of the person was due to this incident is not in dispute. The wife of the deceased filed an application under the provisions of the workmen's Compensation Act praying for compensation on the premise that the deceased was an employee of the appellant, working in the coffee estate as a coolie and that the accident took place while he was engaged in his work at the estate and as such she is entitled for compensation being a dependant. Appellant employer/owner took the stand that the deceased was not an employee under him; that there was no relationship of employer and employee and the person who died due to the falling of the tree was not in his workplace but was walking on the side road of the estate and under such circumstances the claim against the appellant was not tenable. It was further pleaded that the owner of the estate had sold away timber to one Sirajuddin who in turn engaged a contractor to cut and remove the trees and while it was being cut due to the careless action on the part of the contractor of the said Sirajuddin the accident had occurred and that the appellant was not in any way responsible to compensate the claimant in respect of the death of her husband.