DWARKA ARM FACTORY BELLARY Vs. R KHAJA HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, filed by employer challenging the award dated 30-4-1992 in w. C. Case No. 103 of 1991 awarding compensation to the tune of rs. 63,994/- minus the amount of Rs. 10,000/- which has already been paid by the employer to the deceased employee. The facts of the case in brief are that one Mehaboob Basha who was a carpenter with the appellant suffered injuries on 30-7-1988 in the accident, as a result of short circuit in the factory and died on 5-8-1988. The undisputed fact is that the appellant paid some amount as compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- to the father and dependent of the deceased employee mehboob Basha. On 7-12-1991, the 1st respondent who is the father of the deceased Mehboob Basha-employee, filed a claim petition under Sections 3 and 10 of the Workmen's compensation Act, claiming compensation. That along with the application for claiming compensation the claimant filed application for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition under Section 10 of Workmen's Compensation Act. The claimant/respondent in his claim petition asserted that at the time of occurrence the age of the deceased workman was 19 years and that he was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 1,000/-from the appellant. Along with the claim petition, the application for condonation of delay was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. On notice being issued the appellant contested the claim and filed a written objection before the workmen's Compensation Commissioner to the effect as under: "that the claim petition was barred by limitation and as such was not maintainable. The employer further denied the claimants' case that the deceased Mehboob Basha was aged 19 years at the time of the accident but no specific age of the deceased was asserted in the written statement at the time of occurrence by the employer. The appellant employer also denied the claimants allegation to the effect that the deceased Mehboob Basha was getting salary of Rs, 1,000/- per month. Employed asserted that the deceased Mehboob Basha was employed on a monthly salary of Rs. 375/ -. No other plea was raised in the written statement. "

(2.) THE Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation framed these issues: (a) Whether the accident had taken place out of and in course of employment? (b) Whether application for condonation of delay deserved to be allowed? (c) Whether the claimant was the dependent of the deceased employee Mehhoob Basha has been proved? (d) Whether the deceased workman Mehboob Basha was aged about 19 years and whether he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1,000/- and the daily allowance of Rs. 20/-per day? (e) Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation being awarded as claim? (f) What order?

(3.) NO other issues admittedly had been pressed nor got framed by the parties. The Workmen's Compensation commissioner answered to the issues in favour of the claimant. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner further held that deceased Mehboob Basha was getting a salary of Rs. 606/- per month. He awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 63,994/-minus Rs. 10,000/- which had already been paid. Having felt aggrieved with the award of compensation by the Workmen's compensation Commissioner, the employer i. e. , the appellant has come up in appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's compensation Act in this Court.