GRAPHAS ENTERPRISES Vs. K H PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1st Respondent in CR-73/2007 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bangalore, has come up in this appeal impugning the Judgment dated 29.02.2012 on the following four grounds:

(2.) Admittedly the deceased K.P. Vinayaka is son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. It is not in dispute that he died on 19.09.2006 due to heart attack and at the relevant time, he was in the office premises of respondent No. 3 herein, namely M/s. NTTF Industries Limited. The materials on record disclose that the deceased was employed by appellant as mechanic. The appellant had undertaken the work of repairing the grinder installed in the premises of 3rd respondent. Hence, to repair the same deceased was sent to the premises of 3rd respondent to carry out repair of grinding machine. Therefore, the relation ship of employee and employer between them cannot be disbelieved, though it is disputed by appellant. The pleadings and other evidence also clearly support the said fact.

(3.) So far as the second contention is concerned, according to appellant liability to pay compensation could not be saddled on it even though the relationship of employer and employee between the appellant and deceased is accepted. According to appellant, the entire liability to pay compensation should be saddled on the 3rd respondent, since death has taken place in the premises of 3rd respondent, the said respondent should be treated as employer of deceased in the light of definition of Section 2(1)(e) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which reads as under: