RAJAN Vs. SUBRAMONIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under S.30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act), the appellant is the employer. An amount of Rs.26,880/- has been awarded to the respondent workman by way of compensation for the injury caused to him in the course of his employment under the appellant. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (the Commissioner, for short) has also directed the appellant to make payment of an amount, equivalent to fifty percent of the compensation awarded, namely Rs.13440/-as penalty under S.4A(3) of the Act. The appellant was besides directed to pay interest at 6% per annum from December 19, 1979 on the compensation as well as the penalty. The appellant has deposited the entire amount awarded as required by the proviso to S.30, and Tiled this appeal.

(2.) The incident happened on November 19, 1979. The respondent claimed to be a toddy tapper employed by the appellant in his toddy shop No.71, the appellant being a contractor for toddy shops in the Pattamby Excise Range during the year 1979-80. tic was a permanent tapper. He fell down from a coconut tree on which he had climbed for tapping at about 10A.M. on November 19,1979. He was admitted in a private hospital in the first instance, but was later referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode for better care and treatment. His right upper limb was amputated above the elbow level. He was thus incapacitated from doing toddy tapping work for which he had been employed. He claimed that he was getting wages of Rs.300/- per month from the appellant, who did not make payment of any amount by way of compensation. The respondent filed the petition under S.22 of the Act in these circumstances, for award of compensation.

(3.) The appellant's written statement contained every conceivable plea. He claimed that the petition was not maintainable. He denied that the accident arose out of, or in the course of, employment. He even denied that the respondent fell down from a tree while tapping toddy on November 19, 1979. He denied that the respondent was a workman, on monthly wages. He was only paid the price of the toddy brought by him. He denied each and every averment made in the application, and therefore, his liability to pay any amount by way of compensation.