K GNANAMURTHY Vs. G ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appeals filed against the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Labour under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of injury caused to a person doing the constructing buildings work. One appeal has been filed by the owner of the house and other appeal has been filed by the Contractor. According to the claimant, he was working as a worker under the contractor appellant in C.M.A.No.821 of 2007 in the house constructed by the owner appellant in C.M.A.No.2423 of 2006, he fell down from the roof. THErefore, he was unable to work and the doctor has certified 75% disability and in as much as he was a worker working under the second respondent, he has to be compensated for the injuries sustained by him, both by the owner of the house as well as the contractor. THE Tribunal passed an award directing the owner as well as the contractor by fastening the liability of 50% on each of them. Aggrieved against the same, both the owner as well as the contractor have come forward this appeal.

(2.) THE main contention was that it was an accident caused with the negligence attitude of the claimant himself. THErefore, they are not responsible as far as the contractor is concerned he would only contended the owner alone liable, who is the owner of the building and not him as a contractor as a person was working only for one day.

(3.) THE only contention raised by the appellant in C.M.A.No.821 of 2007, who is the contractor is that even though he is a centring contractor, is a small time contractor. As far as the building is concerned he is only worked as a centering person and not a contractor and even otherwise the claimant was working for only one day and that particular day he may not be held to compensate for the injury caused to the claimant. As far as the appellant in C.M.A.No.2423 of 2006 namely the owner of the property he would only contended that admittedly he is the owner of the property, the accident took place in his premise during the course of the centring work and the applicant was a worker under the centring contractor namely the second respondent and if at all any liability can be only as against the second respondent in respect of the building for the centring purpose and therefore, the owner he cannot be held liable to so. On a reading of the evidence of the parties concerned and the documents produced. THE claimant examined himself as PW1 and doctor as PW2 and both the owner as well as the contractor has been examined as RW1 and RW2. THE applicant are produced the FIR as well as the Doctor certificate and the wound certificate which are all marked as EXA1 to A5. THEre is no document marked on the side of the respondent. From the evidence of PW1 and RW2 it is clear that the applicant was working in the building at the relevant point of time. In fact it is also admitted by RW1, who is the owner of the property. THE accident took place in the premise. As per the FIR, the applicant has stated that he was working as a carpenter in the building construed by the first respondent. He would also clear that both in the FIR as well as the evident let the massive for the building of Mariappan and the Gnanamurthy the second respondent was the sub contractor of the centring work and he was working under him. However, he would contended that there was a electrical wire on the top of the building, at the time he requested the owner to disconnect the electricity supply. But he turned out not disconnected should be an electrical shock and fell down and sustained injuries. THErefore, both the owners as well as the contractor was sought to be made liable.