LAWS(KER)-2001-7-3

KUTTAPPAN Vs. C K KESHAVAN

Decided On July 03, 2001
KUTTAPPAN Appellant
V/S
C.K.KESHAVAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in W. C. C. No. 96/92. The applicant claims to be a headload worker of the first contesting respondent at the time of accident on October 18, 1991. The applicant carried a jar of acid on his head for the purpose of preparing rubber sheets as per the direction of the first respondent and was proceeding to the house of the first respondent. While so, the bottom of the jar gave way and the acid flowed on his head, shoulders and all over the body. He suffered burnt injury. The jar was broken, according to the worker, because the acid was kept in a very low quality jar owned by the first respondent. Immediately after the accident, the applicant was taken to various hospitals and treated. At the time of accident, he alleged that he was paid a monthly wages of Rs. 1,200/ -. He claimed compensation accordingly.

(2.) THE respondents appeared before the Court and filed written statements denying the contentions. They alleged that the jar containing acid was being taken by the first respondent for his own use for mixing in the rubber latex in a jeep along with other domestic goods. He alleged that the applicant offered the first respondent that he will carry the jar to his premises and as such he was not an employee of the first respondent. As he acted negligently the jar broke down resulting in the accident. He also pointed out that if the jar was taken carefully, it would not have broken. Thus, he totally denied the contentions.

(3.) THE Commissioner framed necessary issues, one such issue being whether the applicant was a workman within the meaning of Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). This issue was tried as a primary issue and held that the applicant is not a workman working under the respondents. On the basis of this finding, his application was rejected. Other issues were not gone into by the Court. Hence, the workman has come up in appeal challenging the above order.