JOSEPH K S Vs. PRASANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Opposite Party before the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation is before us, challenging the award passed in favour of the applicant granting compensation of an amount of Rs. 1,10,128 with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident to the date of deposit. The matter came up before us for admission on 24-7-2012. Though we were not satisfied that any questions of law as raised by the appellant arises from the order of the Tribunal; the learned counsel strenuously urged before us that a mere perusal of the deposition of the witnesses arrayed on behalf of the applicant would bring to light the hollowness of the claim and reveal the perverse approach adopted by the Commissioner in adjudicating the claim. Hence, we called for the records, which were available when the matter was taken up today.

(2.) We heard Sri. R. Harishankar, the learned counsel for the appellant, extensively and went through the entire records at the stage of admission itself.

(3.) Shorn of all details, the applicant claimed to be an employee in the industry/establishment, by name "General Rubber Products", owned by the Opposite Party. It was the contention of the applicant that on 3-6-2008 at about 1.00 p.m. while she was engaged in the work of feeding rubber sheets into the roller machine, propelled by electric energy, by accident, her right palm went between the rollers causing grievous injuries resulting in loss of four fingers of her right hand. The accident arose out of and in the course of employment as is deposed by the applicant, her co-worker A.W.3 and the driver of the Opposite Party A.W.2. The Opposite Party entered appearance and disputed the employer-employee relationship, but admitted the accident having occurred inside the premises of the industry owned by him. The Commissioner, on appreciation of the evidence, passed the impugned order.