DIVAKARAN THOMPAN Vs. RAMAN NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ernakulam, in W.C.C. No. 51 of 1980. The husband of the respondent herein fell from a palm tree while he was tapping toddy on 10-6-1978 as an employee of the appellant. He sustained serious injuries, was hospitalised and was permanently disabled.

(2.) CLAIMING that he was an employee of the appellant as a toddy tapper attached to toddy shops No. 37, of which the appellant was the contractor on 10-6-1978, he filed the application for compensation for permanent and total disability. He asserted that his monthly wage was Rs. 750/-. He, therefore, claimed Rs. 33,600/- as compensation. He supported his application by his sworn statement, which was recorded by the Commissioner. In his written statement, the appellant denied his accident as also his liability. He also asserted that the applicant was not in the court of appellant's employment at the time when the accident was alleged to have happened. The applicant was examined as AW-1. He produced Ext. A1 medical certificate obtained from the Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Muvattupuzha, to the effect that he was first treated in the Medical College, Arpookkara for "Traumatic Paraplegia" and later be was brought to Government Hospital, Muvattupuzha for follow up and further treatment. He certified the disablement as total and permanent. In this evidence as AW-1, the applicant stated that he was tapping palm trees belonging to Kalarikal Ali at about 8.30 a.m. on 10-6-1978 when the accident occurred. He asserted that it was during the course of his employment under the appellant that the accident took place. In cross-examination he asserted that he was tapping 7 palm trees a day and was delivering an average of 80 Litres of Toddy for sale in the appellant's shop. He stood a long cross-examination fairly well. The applicant died on 2-9-1981 and his wife was brought on record. She was examined as AW-2. AW-3 was the wife of Aliyar, whose palm tree was being tapped by the applicant at the time of the accident. She stated that the applicant was an employee of the appellant that he was tapping toddy from the plam tree in her compound and was delivering toddy to shop No. 37 of the appellant. She asserted that she was an, eye witness to the accident. Her evidence was not shaken in cross-examination. AW-4 was another eye witness. He himself was a tapper. He supported the claim of the applicant in full measure.

(3.) THE Commissioner preferred the evidence of the applicant and held, that he sustained injuries consequent on a fall from a palm free which he was tapping on 10-6-1978, during the course of his employment under the appellant and that the appellant was liable to compensate him. He also held, that the applicant was entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 32,340/- as compensation on the basis that his monthly wage was between Rs. 600/- and Rs. 700/-. The Commissioner allowed the application awarding an amount of Rs. 32,340/- as compensation and Rs. 265/- as costs. The appellant challenges that order of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation in this appeal.