UMESH Vs. P F SALDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the claimant, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hassan Division (hereinafter referred to as "the WCC" for short) in WCA/NF/SR-18/2010 dated 4-3-2011, filed this appeal.

(2.) The appellant filed the claim petition contending that he was working as a coolie under the second respondent herein. On 28-4-2010, at about 8.30 a.m., while he was cutting the trees in the Deepak Estate belonging to the first respondent herein, he fell down from the tree and sustained fracture of right hand, right leg and loss of six teeth. The claimant claims that he has sustained injuries during the course and out of employment. Prior to the accident, the second respondent was paying him salary of Rs. 250/- per day. In view of the injuries sustained, he has sustained permanent disability and he cannot do the work of coolie and climb the tree. Hence sought for compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-.

(3.) In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondents 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed written statements. The first respondent denied the relationship of master and servant between the claimant and himself. The claimant is the employee of second respondent. It is for the second and third respondents to compensate the claimant for the injuries sustained and sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against him. The second respondent admitted that the claimant was working under him as a coolie. The insurance policy covers the risk of the coolies working under him and sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against him. The third respondent in their written statement have denied their liability and also denied other averments made in the claim petition. They have admitted that the employees of 2nd respondent working in Lakkunda estate are insured with them and they are covered under the insurance policy. Since there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, they are not liable to compensate the claimant and hence sought for dismissal of the claim petition.