KAVERI Vs. G MARKANDA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from the judgment and Order dated 27-10-1992 delivered by the workmen's compensation commissioner, bangalore, sub-division ii, in case No. 16 of 1989 Against Kaveri v G. Markanda Naidu, whereby the workmen's compensation commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,200/- as the lump sum compensation with interest @ 6% p. a. from the date of accident till the date of deposit.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that Sri kaveri, present appellant was working as a labourer in crushing stones in rajeshwari granites. According to the claimant, the claimant, in the application originally made stated, that he was getting monthly wages to the tune of Rs. 300/- per month. It may be mentioned here that the admitted position between the parties is that at a later stage an application was made for amendment amending the claim petition and by substituting the figure of Rs. 600/- per month as salary instead of Rs. 300/- as mentioned originally in the claim petition. In other words the amendment was allowed and the claim of the petitioner as per amendment is that he was getting Rs. 600/- per month as salary at the time of occurrence. The claimants case is that on 16-2-1984 at 4. 00 p. m. while he was working in the quarry, the explosive, which was already placed by other workman Sri kuppuswamy did explode and the applicant was directed to remove the same. The applicants further averred that while he was removing the explosive it exploded and applicant lost all his five fingers i. e. , the thumb and the four fingers of his right hand. The claimant as such claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,200/- originally which was later enhanced to Rs. 55,000/ -. It may be mentioned that in the original application loss was mentioned as 60% loss and so applicant did claim Rs. 15,200/- as compensation basing his claim on salary of Rs. 300/- per month but after amendment his salary was asserted to be Rs. 600/- per month and the compensation of Rs. 55,000/- was claimed. On the notice being issued, respondent filed his objections to the claim petition on 26-5-1988. As stated in the written objections, the defence taken was that rajeshwari granite was not a proprietary concern but was a partnership firm, and that applicant and Sri kuppuswamy were not their employees. Respondent denied the applicant to be their employee or workman. They alleged that there was no master and servant relationship between the claimant and the respondent. It may be mentioned that to the amendment also, objections were filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, workmen's compensation commissioner framed the following issues:though I find from the Order the finding has not been specifically recorded as to the wages, the workmen's compensation officer has also opined that the revised schedule/substituted schedule which has been substituted by ACT 22 of 1984 would not have been applicable as the accident did take place in february 1984 while the schedule amendment came into effect from may 1984 and on this ground he opined that age and wage criteria will not apply. He took the view that old schedule 4 might be applicable and determined the compensation to be Rs. 15,200/- and as such awarded it.

(3.) THE workmen/appellant not being satisfied with the amount so awarded by the workmen's compensation commissioner has come up in appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.